Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Health Boards

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met chairmen of health boards to discuss financial allocation.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State meets chairmen of health boards regularly to discuss a wide range of strategic issues affecting the management of the NHS in Scotland. Many of those issues may have financial implications. The last such meeting took place on 5 November.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State take time to meet the chairmen of health boards? Is he aware that two trust hospitals in Scotland—one is in my constituency and the other is in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and fror Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams)—have already advised doctors and consultants to pace themselves, and that doctors and consultants in Dundee hospital trusts are running short of money? Is he further aware that, of all the state-registered nurses who will graduate in Tayside this year, not one will be offered a job? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman made more funds available so that required operations can be carried out and nurses who have gone through two years of training can get jobs?

Mr. Lang: I am aware that, since a number of hospitals in Scotland have become trusts, the efficiency with which they have delivered services has so improved that they are already achieving their targets for the whole year. That is a measure of the considerable success of the trust movement. Funding for health care has increased in real terms by almost 3 per cent. in the current year, and it is for the hospital trusts and the health board to decide whether any further resources might be available.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In my right hon. Friend's discussions with the chairmen, has he compared the allocation of funds in Scotland and in England and Wales? Have there been any statistics on the increase in the number of patients treated in England and Wales under the health reforms compared to the number in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. Resources for health care in Scotland are more than 20 per cent. per head higher than in England and Wales. That,

however, reflects the relative position as regards the quality of health in both countries—for example, the morbidity rate in Scotland is much higher. I regret to have to say that the quality of health generally in parts of Scotland is very much lower than the United Kingdom average.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Secretary of State agree that the financial allocation process in the health service is being used to create not only two classes of patients but two classes of employees? For example, the previous general manager of Fife health board, Francis Gibb, who left under a cloud, has now been given a £65,000 a year job, whereas hundreds of vital, low-paid health service workers, who have given years of quality service to Fife health board, were yesterday thrown on to the privatisation scrapheap? Should not public money be used to provide quality health service for all staff and patients and not to provide jobs for the blue-eyed boys who are friends of the Tory party?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady's description is a travesty of the reality. Mr. Francis Gibb did not leave Fife health board under a cloud. He was seconded to the management executive between November 1991 and July 1993, where he carried out some very successful and important work setting up the national specialist service unit, which is responsible for cardiac surgery, heart and lung transplants, liver transplants and a number of other contracts worth a total of £75 million. He was offered the chance to transfer to the Common Services Agency in September 1993 to ensure continuity under a two-year contract of employment. I regard that as an extremely sensible move.
On funding of the health service in general, the hon. Lady should be aware that, after the statement which I shall make this afternoon, the increase in health care in real terms in Scotland will be almost 50 per cent. higher than it was under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from it being a case of jobs for the boys, one of the benefits of NHS trusts is that they have put nurses and nursing directors on the boards of trust hospitals, thereby enhancing their role, as the Select Committee on Employment was told only yesterday?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The hospital trust exercise has been enormously successful in Scotland and, by next April, some 90 per cent. of all Scottish health care will be delivered in that way.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board the implications for its acute strategy of his decision to allow three acute hospitals in Glasgow to achieve trust status? In other words, will Greater Glasgow health board and the Government still go ahead with their plans to cut at least 1,000 acute beds, or will it be left to the vagaries and brawl of the internal market?

Mr. Lang: The development of the acute services strategy in Greater Glasgow will be a high priority for the new chairman and staff of Greater Glasgow health board. The hon. Gentleman must wait on events.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Berwickshire to discuss reform of local government boundaries with local interested parties.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend the Minister for local government and planning discussed the Government's reform proposals as they affect Berwickshire with a delegation that included the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State accept that in the run-up to publication of the White Paper last summer, much to the dismay and disbelief of local people in Berwickshire, the Government's policy fundamentally changed in terms of combining Berwickshire with East Lothian? Will he further accept that the people of Berwickshire feel that they have never had any sensible explanation of why the Government changed their minds? If he is not prepared to come to Berwickshire himself or to give the House the reasons why the Government changed their mind, will he undertake to look favourably on an amendment moved in Standing Committee, early in the new year, aimed at keeping Berwickshire within the borders?

Mr. Lang: I look forward to debating the issue in the Standing Committee that considers the Bill. That is the place where those matters should be further developed. The Government did not change their mind. They developed the proposals and published them in the White Paper. To some extent, we were influenced by the views of local district authorities in the area. Ettrick and Lauderdale favours a single borders authority, but the other three districts of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Tweeddale favour an alternative arrangement, part of which, in the three-way split, was Berwickshire and the coastal strip of East Lothian. In defence of their proposals, they said:
This would be by far the strongest in terms of representing the variety of local communities. It remains rooted in many continuing historical associations and links.
I suppose that that had something to do with our consideration of the matter.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of north Tayside welcome the proposals affecting that part of Scotland? Is he further aware that some people are concerned about the absence of any mention of leisure and recreation? We presume that those matters will be properly addressed when the boundary changes.

Mr. Lang: It promises to be an interesting Committee stage, when we debate the Bill in detail.

Mr. Home Robertson: If the Secretary of State wants to discuss East Lothian and Berwickshire, he had better come to see me because I am certain that I am the only citizen of Berwickshire who is interested in East Lothian. Is he aware that the one common interest of the people of the two regions is that his low-logic, high-cost plans for local government in Scotland should be aborted at birth, and that goes for the whole of East Lothian, which includes Musselburgh?

Mr. Lang: I am never sure of the hon. Gentleman's status in this matter; perhaps he lives in Berwickshire and owns East Lothian. I understand that he, too, has been to

see my hon. Friend the Minister for local government and planning to make representations. Those, too, will be taken into account when we debate the Bill in Committee.

Mr. George Robertson: Is not the Berwickshire decision just one of the many ludicrous proposals in the Government's White Paper that highlight—if it needed highlighting—the fact that this exercise in butchering Scottish local government is conducted purely in the interests of the Scottish Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman not yet grasped the fact that the reorganisation is unwanted and unnecessary, that it will be disruptive to industry and commerce throughout Scotland and that it will be a huge new cost to every taxpayer north of the border? Will he stop it before it starts?

Mr. Lang: I noticed an interesting opinion poll the other day in the business community, which suggested that more than 80 per cent. of the local business community welcomed single-tier local government. Until recently, the hon. Gentleman's party was committed to single-tier local government, as are the Scottish National party and the Liberals. I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was so frightened of the Conservative party's strength in local government. If he sees great advantage for the Conservative party in local government, it must be as a result of the policies that we propose to reform local government and to strengthen local democracy in Scotland.

Manufacturing

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on manufacturing output in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The latest figures suggest that Scottish manufacturing output in the past year is 1·1 per cent. higher than in the preceding year. Manufacturing output in 1992 increased by 9 per cent. over the 1986 figures, which represents an annual growth rate of 1·4 per cent.

Mr. Oppenheim: Are not exports from Scotland expanding strongly, and does not that show that, although the Scots may have forgotten how to play rugby, they still know how to manufacture and to sell their products at home and abroad? Is not it a little surprising that Opposition Members do not spend more time praising Scottish achievements, which are in sharp contrast to the position under the Labour party in the 1970s, when manufacturing output fell?

Mr. Stewart: I trust that my hon. Friend's confidence in England's chances in the five nations championship is misplaced, but I am sure that he is right about Scotland's manufacturing export record, which is a tribute to not only Scottish management but the work force in Scottish factories. Scottish manufacturing exports were at a record of £9.7 billion in 1992 according to a survey by the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the Scottish CBI. That is a real increase of 6·3 per cent.—a faster rate of growth than in the United Kingdom as a whole in five of the past six years. Frankly, I should have thought that Opposition Member would be proud of that.

Mr. Chisholm: How can the Minister be so complacent when there were heavy job losses in manufacturing


industry in 1992 and 1993, on top of 150,000 job losses in manufacturing since 1979? How can he be complacent about a figure of 1·1 per cent. growth in manufacturing output, which follows growth of only 4 per cent. since 1979, when the Conservative party came to power? How can he be so complacent following last week's Budget, which will knock on the head the already extremely weak recovery in the Scottish economy?

Mr. Stewart: I am not in any way complacent. Of course, challenges face Scotland and the Scottish economy. My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget has been widely welcomed by industry. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that unemployment in Scotland is below the United Kingdom average for the first time since the 1920s, or that the seasonally ajusted total was 8,000 lower in October than in January. He did not mention the fact that civilian employment in Scotland has increased by 169,000 in the past 10 years. That is the reality of the Scottish economy, however much Opposition Members wish to talk down the achievements of Scottish managers and Scottish workers in facing the challenges of international competition.

Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members seem to be oblivious of the fact that we have just come through a deep world recession, during which Scottish manufacturing industry was out there fighting and succeeding, and that the growth rates that he mentioned show a remarkable success in such times? Does he further agree that Scottish manufacturing industry has welcomed the Budget changes? Small businesses in particular welcome the changes to VAT and other areas.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The VAT changes have been widely welcomed by small businesses, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's decision to freeze excise duties on Scotch whisky. My hon. Friend's more general point is also absolutely correct. Labour Scottish Members hate good news for the Scottish economy. They hate more jobs for the Scottish economy and they hate the fact that self-employment in Scotland is up 54 per cent. since 1979. They also hate the fact that real gross domestic product per head is up 30 per cent. since 1981. They do not wish to recognise the achievements of managers and workers in Scotland.

Mr. McLeish: The Minister is not only complacent but very confused. Over the past six quarters, manufacturing output in Scotland has gone down by 1·7 points. Does he appreciate that, according to his own figures, 20,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past year—a mere 80 jobs every working day? Is he aware that the extra burden of the £2 billion of Tory tax increases that will be imposed on Scotland as a result of last week's Budget will do nothing to stimulate demand? When on earth will the cosy, complacent Scottish Office attack the real problem, which is that 250,000 people cannot find a job in Tory Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards, that was not very good. I do not think that he listened to my answer, which was absolutely clear. Manufacturing output in the past year was 1·1 per cent. higher than in the preceding year. He did not quote the more recent evidence from business surveys such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce survey and the Confederation of British

Industry's industrial trends survey in October, which showed an improvement in business confidence for the fourth consecutive quarter and increases in domestic and export orders in the past four months. The hon. Gentleman's constant campaign to talk down Scotland is not succeeding.

Health Care

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the per capita expenditure on health care in Scotland; and what analysis he has made of similar per capita costs in comparable parts of the EC.

Mr. Stewart: Net per capita NHS spending in Scotland was £717 per head in 1992–93. I have not made a detailed analysis of expenditure per capita on health care in other European Community countries.

Mr. Fabricant: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend was not able to produce figures for a comparison with other EC countries, but has he obtained figures for a comparison with at least England and Wales? It seems that the Opposition are always saying that Scotland gets a raw deal. Is that so?

Mr. Stewart: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the figures for other parts of the United Kingdom. Net per capita NHS spending is £717 in Scotland, £578 in England, £660 in Wales and £648 in Northern Ireland, which shows that, by any standards, the NHS in Scotland is extremely well funded.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that, despite that per capita rate in Scotland, a constituent of mine who attends the Paisley trust hospital must wait until 21 March for an appointment to see a urologist? That poor man, who is 78, must wait four and a half months, although he cannot walk 100 yd without going to the toilet. is the hon. Gentleman happy with that situation? He would not like it if it were his father.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Stewart: I shall answer. The health board contracted for 650 patients, but the trust expects to treat 740. That shows, first, that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are more than being met and, secondly, that the establishment of NHS trusts works in practice for the ordinary people to whom he referred.

Surplus Housing Stock

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of surplus housing stocks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of surplus housing stocks, but he has issued guidance to Scottish Homes on the matter. Proposals must have the agreement of tenants, after which they are subject to his approval.

Mr. McKelvey: The Minister will know, because I have told him, that there have been a series of meetings in my constituency, called by the landlord, to discuss with tenants the options of a new tenancy with a new landlord. The vast majority of tenants have said that they would very


much like Kilmarnock and Loudon district council to be their new landlord. If the tenants charter is to mean anything, and if there is to be any sign of a democratic move in that direction, should not the name of the Kilmarnock and Loudon district council appear on the ballot paper when people are given a free and democratic choice of a new landlord?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The current arrangements do not prevent a local authority from putting forward proposals to acquire Scottish Homes' stock. It is for Scottish Homes to decide whether special circumstances arise—including such matters as the number of properties involved and the location and the percentage of stock already owned by the local authority. Some 44 per cent. of the stock in Kilmarnock and Loudon is owned by the local authority. That is above the regional average and well above the national average. The objective of our policy is to provide diversity and choice. For practical operating reasons, Scottish Homes has decided that the ballot paper should contain two options: if the tenants vote against, that is the end of the matter; if they vote for, the matter will eventually come before the Secretary of State, who will have to be satisfied that all considerations had been properly thought through.

Mrs. Fyfe: Kilmarnock and Loudon district council will look at the Minister's reply with a great deal of interest. Does the Minister expect Scottish Homes' rents to rise next year from their current average of £32 a week? Is it not true that he has cut the housing support grant from £36 million to £26 million—a loss of £10 million—in an attempt to force up council house rents from their average of £26·51 per week to as much as £34·86 a week? Why should tenants pay more and more in times of falling interest rates when mortgage payers pay less and less?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In setting this year's rent increase, Scottish Homes' board considered a number of options and agreed on an increase of 9 per cent. to spend more on repairs, management and maintenance. I expect the average increase in local authority rents to be about 5 per cent. On the basis of current trends in rent charges, maintenance and management, I would say that it will not be above 5 per cent. The reduction in the housing support grant for next year reflects partly a reduced need for subsidy and partly our policy of reducing indiscriminate subsidies, such as housing support grant, so that public sector resources can be concentrated on capital investment. Some £700 million is being spent on housing benefit in Scotland, although not exclusively on council house tenants.

Sir David Steel: Is the Minister's experience as a constituency Member of Parliament the same as that of most of the rest of us? Housing problems represent the majority of problems that are raised at our surgeries. When the hon. Gentleman meets Scottish Homes, will he draw its attention to the Department's 1991 housing survey, which revealed that about 1·5 million homes were in need of repair and that the number of houses built for rent had plummeted over the past decade? Will he do a deal with Scottish Homes? Will he give it increased resources to do its job if, in turn, it will stop publishing glossy pamphlets, which expensively tell us how good it is?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes has a very good record in the right hon. Gentleman's area. It is

doing everything that it can to bring empty houses back into use, to expand the housing association movement and to build a number of new houses. It is important to mention the success stories—the before and after—and what can be achieved. The essence of the matter is that if the private sector becomes involved, public sector funds will go very much further.

Local Services

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the provision of local services.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I are scheduled to meet representatives of COSLA on 28 January as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who rejected plans to opt out Paisley grammar school by an overwhelming majority of 41? May I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister, whose personal intervention helped to ensure the defeat of those plans? If the Minister accepts the wishes of the 80 per cent. of people who voted in that ballot—as I think he does—why will he not accept the wishes of the 82 per cent. of people in Ralston and the 79 per cent. of people in Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor who recently voted in a referendum to reject unnecessary, unwanted, costly and gerrymandering proposals that would bring about the destruction of Scottish local government?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time during the last general election canvassing against me in Barrhead—a fact to which I largely attribute my increased majority.
There are legal questions concerning the legitimacy of the referendum to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Those questions are currently being explored, and there is a possibility of an eventual surcharge on the local councillors who voted for the proposal. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, in the circumstances, I can say no more about that issue specifically.
The hon. Gentleman's original question concerned local government finance. I am astonished that he did not draw attention to the generosity of my right hon. Friend's local government finance settlement this year. Per capita expenditure on local government in Scotland is substantially higher than that in England and Wales.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the scaremongering of Opposition Front Benchers, single-tier authorities throughout Scotland will be cheaper to run and more accountable to the electorate, and will save the council tax payer money?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Allegations to the contrary from the Opposition are wholly contradicted by what Labour councils actually say in their individual submissions to the Scottish Office. I will give an example. In its submission to the Scottish Office, Dundee district council—hardly a safe haven for Toryism—estimates that the council tax bill would be £14·45 cheaper


per Dundee household if there were a Dundee, rather than a Tayside, unitary authority. That is the evidence from Labour councils.

Mrs. Adams: Is the Minister aware that I loved last week's good news from Paisley grammar school? In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), he seemed to be telling us that he himself was opting out of democracy and was unwilling to accept the views of the people in Renfrew district who told him that they did not want the new local authorities that he proposes to set up. Will he assure me that he accepts the views of parents of children at Paisley grammar school, and also that he agrees with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who told me in a television programme last week that he believed in devolving power?

Mr. Stewart: Of course the Government accept the vote concerning Paisley grammar school. It was this Government who gave parents the choice to make that decision, and this Government who saved Paisley grammar school when friends of the hon. Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) wanted to close it for ideological reasons. The Government gave parents a choice on their future.

Mr. McFall: The parents of pupils at Paisley grammar school have spoken for Scottish education, but who speaks for the Government? Is it the Minister responsible for education, who stated on national television that the result showed a high level of parental satisfaction with the present system, or is it the Secretary of State, who stated that 20 per cent. of the electorate voting to opt out represented a success? I concede that 20 per cent. is a solid achievement in Tory terms, but to everyone else it is a miserable failure. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will clear up that confusion by the time he meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 28 January—and that the Government, after getting a bloody nose, will in a spirit of humility stop destabilising Scottish education and support and encourage local authorities, parents and pupils in their education efforts?

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman and his friends give a guarantee that the Labour party will not close Paisley grammar school? That guarantee has not been given. Labour tried it before and will try it again.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister guarantee to COSLA that he will not pack the Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill with Conservative Members representing English seats—a guarantee that he singularly failed to give in correspondence?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has corresponded with me on that matter, but the Committee's membership is a matter for the Committee of Selection. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that he and I disagree on a fundamental point: I take the view that this is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

Health Care (Glasgow)

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the provision of health care in the Glasgow area.

Mr. Lang: I and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister responsible for health matters meet health board chairmen from time to time, and expect to meet the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board in due course to discuss health matters in Glasgow.

Mr. Galloway: When the Secretary of State meets the new man, when will he be able to give him any assurance that he will not fall victim to the same Watergate-style skulduggery described by the Secretary of State's distinguished predecessor, Lord Younger, as being the fate of Mr. Bill Fyfe—the departing chairman of Greater Glasgow health board? How much longer can the Secretary of State pretend that he and other Ministers had no knowledge of the grisly details of that affair, when Scotland on Sunday revealed last Sunday that on 6 and 30 August, and in October this year, the right hon. Gentleman's most senior and trusted advisers were intervening in the matter? Will the Secretary of State answer here and now the classic Watergate question: what did Ministers know about the Fyfe-Peterken affair and when did they know it?

Mr. Lang: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is an expert in skulduggery but I have no doubt that the appointment of Sir Robert Calderwood as the new chairman of Greater Glasgow health board—which has been widely welcomed—will be extremely successful. I can tell the hon. Gentleman also that I have looked into the matter and I am satisfied that Mr. Fyfe was told repeatedly that he could not and should not seek to terminate Mr. Peterken's employment and make the offer of a financial settlement to him. I have to conclude that Mr. Fyfe was the architect of his own downfall.

Mr. David Marshall: While the Government fiddle the health service, is the Secretary of State aware that many thousands of people in the Greater Glasgow health board area are on the waiting list for treatment? Is he aware, for example, that one of my teenage constituents was told just last week that he would have to wait two and a half years for necessary dental treatment at Glasgow dental hospital? When will the Secretary of State start putting patient care before Tory party political cover-ups and jobs for his supporters?

Mr. Lang: The budget for Greater Glasgow health board has been increased in the current year by 2·1 per cent. in real terms. That is a substantial increase, and I shall be announcing further increases later. The waiting list for long-term patients has fallen from 13·3 per cent. in June 1991 to 9·4 per cent. in 1993, so considerable progress in shortening waiting lists, especially for those with long waits, has been made.

Mr. Wallace: When did the Secretary of state become aware of the terms of the letter dated 6 August which was sent to the Treasury by the acting chief executive of the health service in Scotland, who is answerable to the Secretary of State? Did that letter state that the Secretary of State no longer had confidence in Mr. Peterken? If so, did it represent the Secretary of State's view? If not, what action has been taken against a senior official who so grossly misrepresented the Secretary of State's view?

Mr. Lang: I first became aware of the letter on 23 November. It did not say that I had lost confidence in Mr.


Peterken. I had not, and I still have not, lost confidence in Mr. Peterken. The letter was between officials in my Department and officials in the Treasury.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his total silence on this scandal in the Greater Glasgow health board over the past five weeks is both significant and deeply suspicious? Does he seriously expect people to believe that Mr. Bill Fyfe was having meetings throughout 1993 to discuss getting rid of Laurence Peterken—meetings which included the Secretary of State's solicitor and the director of personnel in the Scottish Office—and that a senior official, believed to be the acting chief executive of the national health service in Scotland, wrote a letter to the Treasury on 6 August asking for approval for a £200,000 pay-off for Mr. Peterken? Does the Secretary of State expect us to believe that neither he nor the Minister knew anything at all about that?
Who is telling the truth in this sordid tale: Bill Fyfe—the Secretary of State's personal nominee last year for running this giant quango with all the documentary evidence that he has to back him—or Ministers of the Crown, with whom ultimate responsibility for this shambles lies? They cannot both be telling the truth. Surely it is time that Ministers acted with the honour and decency that used to go with high office in this country.

Mr. Lang: I welcome the decision of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to investigate this matter and I look forward to the publication of its report. I have also instructed the chief executive of the management executive to carry out an inquiry into the events surrounding the dismissal of the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board. That inquiry is not yet complete, but a report will be published. I say to the hon. Gentleman—and I say it more in sorrow than in anger—that when I heard him comparing the resignation of the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board, who had lost the confidence of his non-executive board members, with 25 years of carnage, murder and terrorism in Northern Ireland, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was plumbing the depths of bad taste.

Inward Investment

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage further inward investment.

Mr. Stewart: My Department, through the work of Locate in Scotland, is continually promoting Scotland as a location for inward investment. My right hon. Friend and I have recently undertaken inward investment missions to the far east and the United States, respectively, where discussions were held with existing and potential investors.

Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that inward investment has created many thousands of jobs in Scotland and will contribute to the continued regeneration of the Scottish economy? Does he agree that one of the main reasons why overseas investors come to Scotland and, indeed, to Britain as a whole is because the British Government have refused to sign up to Labour's two job destroyers—the social chapter and the minimum wage?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. Even President Jacques Delors has admitted

that there is no question but that the sensible Government decision not to sign up to the social chapter makes the United Kingdom an attractive place for inward investment from Japan and the United States as company after company confirmed to me on my recent visit.
In relation to my hon. Friend's second point, I can confirm that, since its formation in 1981, Locate in Scotland has recorded planned inward investment of £5 billion, which is associated with the expected creation or safeguarding of more than 96,000 jobs in Scotland. That is a considerable record, which I hope that the whole House will welcome.

Dr. Bray: Has the Minister read the recent report by the electronics industry in Scotland, which points out its vulnerability to the fact that it consists largely of screwdriver assembly plants, with little research and development, little marketing and little worldwide product responsibility? Has he further read the report by Scottish Enterprise and its chief executive, documenting the lack of entrepreneurship in Scottish industry? Has the Minister any comment on that after 14 years of Tory government?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in those subjects, and I have read the reports to which he refers. About 47 per cent. of all overseas-owned manufacturing companies in Scotland undertake some form of research and development. The Scottish electronics forum, which was addressed by my right hon. Friend earlier this week, is addressing those challenges. Of course there are challenges—let us not be in any doubt about that—but we must not, and I do not suggest that the hon. Member did, underestimate the huge successes that Scotland has had and is continuing to have in the electronics industry.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the Budget statement announcing the investment of about £200 million in the new air traffic control centre at Atlantic house in Prestwick in my constituency? Does he accept that my constituents express relief and enthusiasm that the service that they provide to the airline industry will continue, and does he agree that that gives an almighty boost to the economy of south Ayrshire and the surrounding area?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to welcome that important announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement. In addition, as my hon. Friend knows extremely well, because he was very much involved, the decision by Digital to centre its European operations in my hon. Friend's constituency—[Interruption]—well, close to the border of the constituency of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—is a good example of Locate in Scotland's immense success not only in attracting but in retaining key overseas investment of the highest quality in Scotland.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that, in addition to his efforts to attract investment to Scotland, the Government must support existing industry in promoting and exporting services and goods overseas? Will he confirm the work of Scottish Enterprise and congratulate it on identifying excellent potential hydro-electricty sites in Vietnam? Is he aware that approval for those projects can


create employment in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Will he urge the Overseas Development Administration to approve those projects so that work can proceed?

Mr. Stewart: I know of the hon. Gentleman's close personal interest in this matter, and I regard those projects as having considerable potential for Northern Ireland and Scotland. I had the opportunity to discuss the projects briefly with the Prime Minister of Vietnam when he visited Scotland, and I can assure the hon. Member that Scottish Enterprise is doing everything possible to put forward a positive case for the developments to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Government of Scotland

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the Coalition for Scottish Democracy in relation to its demand for a multi-option referendum on the government of Scotland.

Mr. Lang: I have had no discussions with the Coalition for Scottish Democracy, whatever that body may be.

Mr. McAllion: That is a pity, because a Secretary of State who governs Scotland by quango, without the support or consent of the people, desperately needs to talk to people who understand what democracy is all about. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain the riddle of why the Government support the Unionist status quo in Northern Ireland, on the ground that it is supported by parties with 67 per cent. of the popular vote there, but oppose the break-up of the Unionist status quo in Scotland despite the fact that that is supported by parties with 75 per cent. of the popular vote in our country? Is not the Government's support for self-determination for the Province of Northern Ireland while denying self-determination to the nation of Scotland based not on any political principle but on the grubby political fact that they need the votes of Ulster Unionists to save them from a general election and from the votes and the judgment of the people of this country?

Mr. Lang: I do not think that such simplistic comparisons do anything to add enlightenment either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. Part of the nature of the United Kingdom is its diversity. What is important is that we maintain its unity. I am content and satisfied that the arrangements that Scotland has in the United Kingdom Parliament offer the best protection for Scotland's future in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who stand for election to this Parliament and come here should recognise that it is this Parliament to which they were elected and that their allegiance should not lie elsewhere unless they have declared that fact clearly, as a few do? Should not those who come to Parliament without declaring that allegiance, and then attempt to destroy it by means of bogus vehicles and sounding operations, recognise that that was not how they were elected to this place?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the changes recently proposed in the White Paper affecting the handling of Scottish business in the House will be able to make progress early in the new year.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Following the comments of my Unionist friend the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and as we in England, Northern Ireland and Wales have a legitimate interest in any constitutional changes in Scotland—indeed, we are concerned about the value of such changes—can the Secretary of State assure the House that if a referendum were held in Scotland an identical referendum would be held elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than most the differences between the different parts of the United Kingdom. However, as his question is hypothetical, no answer of mine could have any substance.

Sunday Trading

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently about the Sunday trading law in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since December 1992, my right hon. Friend has received 11 representations, including two letters from one individual supporting restrictions on Sunday trading. He has also received two letters in support of the Shopping Hours Reform Council partial deregulation model and one letter in favour of the present arrangements.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows the widespread support of the Scottish people for the present arrangements? Does he therefore agree that it would be illogical for Scottish Members of Parliament to vote to impose on my constituents restrictions from which they do not suffer and which those Members would not seek to impose on their constituents? Does he also agree that the present position in Scotland demonstrates that it is individual conscience rather than legislative fiat that keeps Sunday special?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The arrangements in Scotland are working well, and hon. Members will have the opportunity to vote later today on the issues as they relate to England and Wales. I shall watch with particular fascination how the Leader of the Opposition votes, as I understand that he has reservations about English Members voting on Scottish matters.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In connection with Sunday trading, and with trading in Scotland, what representations has the Minister received about the disgraceful fact that it is now possible for planning permission to be given for alcohol to be sold in garage forecourts? An amendment was passed to make that totally impossible in England. Will the Minister take the earliest opportunity under the Sunday trading legislation to outlaw totally the selling of alcohol in garage forecourts? Is not that wrong, whatever view one takes?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Bill applies in England, but I have some sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman and I will examine the matter. A number of issues in relation to the subject are under consideration. For example, hairdressers are not allowed to cut hair on Sundays, which is a restriction. That is the type of issue that we are examining.

Easter Ross

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to pay an official visit to Easter Ross to assess the local economic situation; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Easter Ross, but, as Minister with responsibility for the highlands and islands, I am always willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and local representatives to discuss constituency matters.

Mr. Kennedy: May I thank the Minister, following our conversations during the past week or two, for clarifying the to-ing and fro-ing between himself and the Ross and Cromarty district council? Will it be possible, probably early in the new year, for representatives of the district council to meet him to discuss their anxiety about unemployment, particularly that relating to the oil fabrication centre?
The petition that was delivered by Opposition Members this morning relates to fish farming and the dumping of Norwegian salmon on the European market. That issue affects the highlands and islands, and has a depressing effect on a key industry in the western and northern isles and on the west coast generally. Will the Minister confirm that the meeting, which I hope will take place in the new year, will be broadly based and that we will be able to discuss that issue as well as the oil sector?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that action on fish farming has been taken with the Commission, and that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture is following it up. A considerable amount has been done through Highlands and Islands Enterprise with Ross and Cromarty Enterprise to establish a Moray firth oil initiative. I recognise the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I can tell him that some 500 people who had been laid off found employment through the initiative and through retraining. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman, but I stress that I have had 60 meetings in the Highlands and Islands. If necessary, I will meet him with representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry and, if possible, the Minister concerned.

Economic Growth

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss measures to promote economic growth in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: I keep in regular touch with the Scottish Council on matters relating to the Scottish economy.

Mr. Salmond: I should like to ask a question on the Scottish salmon farming and fish farming industry which was not answered by the reply to the previous question. The Secretary of State must be aware that 6,000 jobs and

£200 million on the balance of payments are at stake in an industry which provides vital employment in many rural areas of Scotland.
Why do producers in that vital sector have to go to the Irish Government for help in Europe to protect their industry against Norwegian dumping? Is the Secretary of State aware that the action of the Commission today is totally inadequate and will not help? Effective action depends on the United Kingdom assisting the Irish Government to defend the industry. When will the right hon. Gentleman start acting as Secretary of State for Scotland rather than as Secretary of State against Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the industry as an important provider of jobs in rural areas, and I agree that about 6,000 people are employed in the industry. It is an important industry and, through meetings that I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Scotland have had with the industry, I am aware of the anxiety.
I took the matter up with the European Commissioner when a minimum import price was introduced recently, and further consideration of those and other matters is now in hand.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the members of the Scottish Council on their work? Will he also congratulate the members of Locate in Scotland on their work and, in particular, on the fact that they have just brought to Scotland a firm that will provide 1,000 jobs in the west of Scotland thanks to their aptitude and excellence?

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to emphasise those two important components of the Scottish economy. Not only did Locate in Scotland have an exceptionally good year in attracting inward investment to Scotland in a fiercely competitive world environment, but the export side has also been extremely successful—a matter in which the Scottish Council is heavily involved. Our exports were up by 9·6 per cent. in value in 1992, and by 6 per cent. in volume, to their highest ever value of £9·7 billion.

Mr. Macdonald: On salmon farming, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the actions so far taken by the Commission are completely inadequate to defend the industry against the uncompetitive practices of the Norwegians? Why is it possible to impose a 12 per cent. import levy on farmed trout but not on farmed salmon? Why is it possible for the Americans to impose a 26 per cent. levy against Norwegian salmon entering the United States? Will the Secretary of State undertake at least to push for this sort of measure to defend the Scottish salmon farming industry?

Mr. Lang: The introduction of a minimum import price has provided a base around which the market can stabilise, although I acknowledge that many salmon farmers regard that base as too low. As I have already said, we continue to be in touch on these matters, and consideration is being given to further action.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about public expenditure in Scotland. Copies of my statement will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down.
In his Budget statement my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's overall expenditure plans. The same day I announced my decisions for local authority spending: both Government-supported expenditure and aggregate external finance. I am now able to announce how I propose to allocate the resources available for all my programmes. As usual, a table summarising my decisions will appear in the Official Report and full details will be included in my departmental report, which will be published in March.
The Government have made it clear for some time that the overall public expenditure totals announced last year for 1994–95 and 1995–96 would not be breached. Firm control of public expenditure is an essential discipline and one we are determined to maintain. Against that background this year's public expenditure settlement for the Scottish Office is fair and realistic. The net resources available to me for allocation next year exceed £14 billion—more than 4 per cent. higher than the corresponding plans for the present year. This amounts to £2,743 per head—over £50 a week for every man, woman or child in Scotland.
My plans provide for over £3 billion each year in gross capital expenditure. Of that, over £2 billion will be on the construction of new physical assets by central Government, local authorities and other bodies.
In addition to those plans for public expenditure, I expect the private sector to participate in many important projects. The Skye bridge is a good example of what can be achieved on top of the public investment programme. I plan to announce early next year the outcome of the feasibility studies on the Setting Forth proposals.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement that we plan to introduce new contracts under which the private sector will design, build, finance and operate roads. I shall be examining our programme urgently to maximise that opportunity. The early success of the private finance initiative in Scotland is widely recognised and it confirms our reputation for enterprise and innovation. I am determined to build on this success in the years ahead.
I now turn to individual programmes. These reflect my judgment of priorities for the year ahead.
We are committed to increasing year by year the resources of the health service in Scotland, over and above the rise in inflation. Despite the many other pressures on my programme, I will meet fully that commitment. In 1994–95, net expenditure on health in Scotland will be nearly £4 billion, which is almost £200 million more than the plans for the current year and an increase of more than 5 per cent. And by next year, expenditure on the NHS in Scotland will have increased, after allowing for inflation, to half as much again as it was when this Government came into office.
My plans maintain and accelerate the Government's investment in Scotland's economic development and in training, in partnership with the private sector. To this end,

I have allocated £452 million to the Scottish Enterprise network next year to pursue its key objectives, £12 million more than previously planned. It will also enable Scottish Enterprise to take over responsibilities from the new towns for meeting inward investors' needs as the new towns are wound up.
After taking account of the transfer of some responsibilities to the Scottish Tourist Board, I have allocated to Highlands and Islands Enterprise an increase of £1·3 million over the current year. In addition, our success in securing objective 1 status for them means that the highlands and islands can look forward to increasing levels of EC structural fund investment. Overall my plans include provision for almost £390 million of grants from the European regional development fund over the next three years.
In recognition of the importance of investment in infrastructure for the Scottish economy, I have chosen to use the flexibility available to me under the Scottish block arrangements to give particular priority to investment in roads and transport. I have been able not simply to maintain previously planned investment in roads and transport but to increase it to a total of £427 million next year, £20 million more than this year's expenditure. The total over the next three years will be around £1·3 billion. We shall thus be able to maintain the momentum of the trunk road and motorway construction and upgrading programme so important to our economic progress. During the next three years we will start all the remaining schemes needed to complete the A74 upgrading programme and there will be major improvement schemes for other main routes, including the M8 and the A1.
Investment in education is vital. The education budget of the Scottish Office Education Department, at £1·3 billion, will be over £130 million more next year than this year's plans. This growth reflects, among other things, the continuing increase in the uptake of higher and further education, with more students than ever before at Scottish institutions.
Expenditure on the arts will also rise next year, to £71 million. That includes provision for the Scottish Arts Council of almost £24 million and should help it to a good start under my sponsorship.
Local authorities account for 45 per cent. of all Scottish Office expenditure and cannot be excluded from the restraint necessary in overall public expenditure. I announced on Budget day my decisions on Government supported expenditure of local authorities and on aggregate external finance. Government support for local authority current expenditure, including provision for community care, will increase by 2·4 per cent. Provided local authorities adopt the approach to pay restraint and productivity required across the public sector, these resources are sufficient to maintain services and meet new responsibilities. In total my plans allow for local authority expenditure of well over £20 per week for every inhabitant of Scotland.
I have also made specific additional provision of £23 million for the funding of the new local authorities in the year before they take up formally their responsibilities. This will enable them to plan for a smooth transition.
I have increased the allocation to environmental programmes to £366 million, £6 million more than the present year. Of that, £40 million is for Scottish Natural Heritage—a 10·5 per cent. increase in the provision available to it this year, to assist it to take forward the


implementation of European Community directives and the reports of the working parties, including those on the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond. Capital investment in the water and sewerage industry will be maintained at more than £240 million a year, with the additional provisions to cover the costs of the restructuring of the industry.
On housing, the total net provision shows an increase over 1993–94 plans to £679 million. Within this total I have given priority to capital expenditure, boosting provision for local authority investment in its own housing by 5·5 per cent. I have asked local authorities to give priority to care in the community and to tackling the problems of homelessness, housing below the tolerable standard, and dampness and condensation. The resources I am making available will enable them to do this. Scottish Homes' net provision will increase by 5·8 per cent. to £323 million.
The maintenance of law and order and the protection of the citizen are key elements of the Government's

£million



1993–94
1993–94
1994–95
1995–96
1996–97



Estimated outturn
Planned provision
Planned provision
Planned provision
Planned provision



Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net


Central Government expenditure2 and local authority capital expenditure2


Agriculture, fisheries and food
457
448
447
439
519
512
569
562
579
572


Industry, enterprise and training
643
557
629
544
646
599
658
610
666
617


Roads and transport
408
408
406
406
427
427
430
430
440
440


Housing4
1,021
665
1,021
665
1,029
679
1,014
675
990
661


Other environmental services4
488
364
484
360
496
366
503
379
492
382


Law, order and protective services
476
454
476
453
491
466
499
472
501
472


Education5
1,202
1,202
1,172
1,172
1,306
1,306
1,359
1,359
1,383
1,383


Arts and libraries
54
54
54
54
77
77
77
77
74
74


Health
3,917
3,795
3,888
3,766
4,089
3,961
4,245
4,114
4,365
4,231


Social Work services
63
63
63
63
67
67
69
69
70
70


Other public services
220
180
220
180
225
184
227
185
224
183


Total central Government and local authority capital
8,948
8,189
8,860
8,102
9,371
8,643
9,649
8,931
9,784
9,086


Provision to match receipts from the European regional development fund
—
116
—
120
—
124
—
128
—
137


Central Government support to local authorities' current expenditure35
—
5,235
—
5,190
—
5,275
—
5,392
—
5,482


Nationalised industries financing limits
—
35
—
35
—
22
—
22
—
23


Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility1
—
13,574
—
13,447
—
14,021
—
14,428
—
14,728


1 The totals shown differ from those in the Financial Statement and Budget report. The figures in that document included provision for the Forestry Commission. Provision for the Commission is £94 million in 1993–94, £95 million in 1994–95 and £94 million in each of 1995–96 and 1996–97.


2 Including public corporations other than nationalised industries. Also includes grants to local authorities for the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI).


3 Central Government support to local authorities comprises income from non-domestic rates, revenue support grant, and grants to local authorities for specific purposes apart from grants for TVEI.


4 Figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 reflect the timing of wind up of New Town Development Corporations.


5 From 1994–95, the careers service (£13·6 million a year) is included in the Education line. Prior to that it was local authority expenditure.


6 Figures may not add due to rounding.

Mr. George Robertson: We have just seen from the Secretary of State the same confidence trick that we saw last week from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his Budget. When we look behind the figures, expose the creative accountancy and blow away the blizzard of hype, the truth is a whole lot different and much nastier.
The statement is part of and in addition to the Budget which will cost every family in Scotland an extra £10 a week in tax from next October and £16 a week from the

programme. I have reflected that priority by providing £466 million for the programme in 1994–95, an increase of about £13 million. That level of provision, together with the substantial resources I am allocating for local authority expenditure, will allow for the continued progress in those essential services which the public will rightly expect to see.
In making the allocations I have announced today I have had to take tough decisions. I make no apologies for that. The need to pursue sound money policies makes that essential. But what the taxpayer puts into the programmes is only the start. What matters most is what is bought with these very substantial resources of more than £14 billion. My colleagues and I will continue to seek for maximum value for money; and I expect all those involved in implementing these plans, in local authorities and in other bodies as well as in my own Departments, to do the same. The taxpayer and every consumer of public services in Scotland deserve no less. I commend the plans to the House
Following is the table:
following April—the biggest tax hike in British history —and now we are to have massive real cuts in public expenditure as well.
The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke about taking tough decisions. I suggest that the easiest decision that the Government took was to break their election promises with such enthusiasm. The truth is that after an election in which they promised low tax and more spending, the Scottish people will pay more and get a lot less for it—more tax and less spending. It is no wonder that, apparently, the Secretary of State for Scotland is unwilling to go on


television this evening to debate the figures. I certainly would be reluctant to do so if I were putting forward such a case.
The basis of this statistical juggling act is hidden in the Chancellor's own Budget Red Book. On page 17 of the Red Book on the unified Budget, the Government admit that they expect inflation to go up next year by 3·25 per cent. The Government freeze people's pay, but still expect them to bear the brunt of an inflation rate of 3·25 per cent.
Only those who believe that inflation will not affect Government spending will believe the figures and the gloss we have just had from the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State said just one thing with which I agree. Local authorities account for almost half Scottish Office expenditure. In real terms, in addition to the 3·25 per cent. inflation that the Chancellor is predicting, in the next three years Scottish local councils will get £330 million less than they get now—a huge and damaging cut to their budgets which must mean fewer jobs, poorer services and, inevitably, a massive hike in council tax bills.
As if that were not bad enough, we have what can be described only as a deception on the course of local government reorganisation. In March this year, the Secretary of State's highly expensive consultants Touche Ross forecast that the costs and savings of the reorganisation would balance out. Of course, that was to be discredited and abandoned within days of publication.
Two weeks ago, at this very Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State for Scotland accepted a figure of £200 million as the cost of reorganisation to the taxpayer. It is there on the record; it is in Hansard for even the Minister for Local Government to try to read and understand. He said that only two weeks ago, but today's statement tells us that it will cost £70 million, not a penny of which will be in the budgets which he is now going to slash by £350 million over the next three years.
The only explanation for that is that there will be big bills for council tax payers as a consequence of reorganisation; and the higher the band, the bigger the bill. Who would buy a used calculator from this bunch of Ministers? When one looks at the figures in the various areas that the Secretary of State for Scotland outlined in his long statement, the glossy picture looks very different from the reality. On law and order, the Conservative party, which claims a special reputation on law and order but which has governed during an explosion in the Scottish crime rate, proposes that budgets be slashed by 1·3 per cent. in real terms in the next year alone.
On housing, where there are problems of homelessness and housing dampness, which even the Secretary of State acknowledges in his statement to be serious, and in respect of which every Member of the House knows that our constituents face real and increasing problems, budgets will be slashed over the next year by 1·8 per cent. in real terms.
On education, again the Secretary of State claims that he has specially given protection, but we know from the Chancellor's Budget statement last week that students in every university and college will have their grants cut next year and that the threat of students having to pay a proportion in tuition fees is more real than any Minister is presently prepared to admit.
Even on health, the Government boast about their record, but the Secretary of State for Scotland published a report yesterday that shows how seriously different the problems of health are in Scotland. He knows—as do the

House and the country—that costs rise faster than inflation, yet for the health service in Scotland next year he is providing a miserable increase of 0·4 per cent. in real terms.
In the light of the tough decisions that the Secretary of State for Scotland says that he has had to take, and in the light of his exhortation about value for money, will he explain why the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will increase by 15 per cent. in cash terms—£64 million—in the next year? It will be interesting to know why, because if it was good news I should have thought that it would be in his statement.
This year's unified Budget, of which this expenditure statement is a part, has been a disaster for Scotland and Britain. Nineteen in every 20 families will be hit by its tax increases. The unemployed and the sick will be specially targeted for penalty. The cost of living in Scotland will rise sharply and all our public services—housing, law and order and everything that is provided by local councils —will be cut substantially. It is in the light of that reality that today's glossy fiction will be judged, and it will be judged harshly indeed.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) started talking about a confidence trick. Confidence? Yes, because I believe that that is the right pattern of expenditure and it is a substantial sum of resources for Scotland. But trick? No. It is the hon. Gentleman who is playing tricks, because some of his figures bear no relation to reality.
The hon. Gentleman talked about massive real-term cuts. Perhaps he would like to identify precisely where they are. Inflation is currently running at 1·7 per cent. It may well rise from that figure before the end of 1994–95, but the Chancellor indicated in his Budget speech that he expected it to be around the lower level of 1 to 4 per cent.
As to going on television this evening, I was under the impression that I was going to spend quite some considerable time on television after this, and I look forward to the occasion. [Interruption.] I shall debate with the hon. Gentleman any time he likes. I am debating with him now and am scoring rather a lot of points off him. If he can contain his soul in patience, I have a good many more points to score.
The hon. Member for Hamilton talked about local authorities and claimed that we were contemplating a cut in real terms. He had to stretch his expectation over a three-year period to do that, but he knows as well as I do that the figures for years two and three in the survey are provisional. For next year, the increase is 3·41 per cent., and if one removes the net additional items for local authority activity, it is still an increase of 2·23 per cent. in Government-aided expenditure.
As to the cost of reform, the hon. Gentleman is now accusing me of arguing in favour of £200 million. I said in the debate that I would accept the figure of £200 million of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) if he would accept what that meant. Clearly, he is not willing to do that as, while his hon. Friend has gone down to a figure of £70 million to £80 million, as reported in today's Glasgow Herald, the hon. Gentleman has gone up to over £600 million. Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman through it, as it might be worth spending a little time on it.
We are making provision next year for costs of £5 million for local authorities to begin to prepare for reform. The year after that, we are providing an extra £25 million,


plus £23 million for the shadow authorities. The year after that, in 1996–97, it will be £55 million. By then, we shall have savings of £40 million coming through, giving a net cost of £15 million. That means over the three-year period a net cost of £45 million, but the savings thereafter will go on year after year, to the benefit of local council tax payers in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the explosion in crime, but he cannot have looked at the Scottish figures recently. If he had, he would have found that they show crime having fallen right across the board for a considerable period. Nevertheless, we are planning an increase in the spend on police from £37·7 million to £39·8 million. That is a rise of 5·6 per cent., which is an increase even by the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic anticipation of inflation levels. I can understand why the Labour party expects inflation to be high. After all, inflation averaged 15 per cent. throughout its period in office from 1974 to 1979.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of cuts in education, but we are increasing education expenditure by no less than 11·4 per cent. That is a substantial increase which will cover the expansion in higher and further education.
On health, the hon. Gentleman argued that we were going for a real terms increase of only 0·4 per cent. The gross figure is 5·2 per cent. but, in real terms, even at the pessimistic inflation figure of 4 per cent., that would still be an increase of 1·1 per cent., nearly three times the figure estimated by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of concealing good news about agriculture. I am never one to do that, so I will happily tell the House that the agriculture programme is going up from £439·3 million to £511·7 million—a substantial increase of around 16 per cent., reflecting the reform of the common agricultural policy.
Those programmes and proposals for the year ahead represent a realistic and relevant planning of the disposition of finances in Scotland to help to continue the economic recovery and the improvement in social conditions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Now that we have got through the initial exchanges, let me caution the House. We are not in the middle of a debate. The Secretary of State is here to answer questions. I am sure that he will do so directly, and I am sure that the Back Benchers whom I call will put their questions briskly.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the economic circumstances of Europe today, where many Europeans are looking forward to spending three weeks out of four on the dole, particularly in Germany, his budget for spending in Scotland will come as a surprise to those people but be welcomed in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is the more creditable that we have secured those resources for Scotland against a background of public expenditure overall being brought under control and the public sector borrowing requirement being brought down sharply, thus increasing confidence and the prospect of continuing

economic recovery, out of which will come further resources in due course to continue to sustain the development of our programmes.

Mr. James Wallace: As the Secretary of State said that he had exercised his judgment about priorities, we may judge whether his priorities are fair and realistic. Given that we have been told so often of the importance of substantial increases in investment in water and sewerage in a short time scale, how can he justify the fact that there is to be no increase in such investments by saying that they are not a priority? How does he perceive it as fair and realistic to expect a fireman or policeman to increase productivity? To what extent will the squeeze on local government expenditure allow local authorities to meet the Prime Minister's priority of expanding nursery education?
With regard to the agriculture and fisheries budget, how much has been taken out of the less favoured areas by cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances and farm conservation grants? Will he confirm that funds will still be available for decommissioning the Scottish fishing fleet next year?

Mr. Lang: I am not sure which of those questions to answer, but, given your stricture, Madam Speaker, I shall have to be brief.
The figures for water and sewerage are increasing from £237 million to £243·7 million. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, as there is no longer a base line figure in the English and Welsh expenditure programmes on which the formula can operate, the capacity to increase resources under that heading is limited. That is why I looked to the private sector to increase resources in due course. Nevertheless, the resources enable 19 new suppliers, 91 improvement schemes to be developed, 56 major sewerage schemes and 69 new or improved treatment works over the next 18 months. That is a substantial commitment.
The hon. Gentleman will also no doubt be pleased to know that our commitment to continuing to increase the resources for the tariff rebate subsidy will increase next year by 25 per cent. over the current year's plans.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? Does he agree that the greatest costs that we suffer are because of those people who are unnecessarily employed by local government, and is not it time that we did something about it? The Opposition should stop complaining that local government provides employment. It does not. It merely provides people with an income.

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Local authority expenditure accounts for a substantial proportion of Scottish Office resources. I looked back at figures for previous years and discovered that, despite their continuing claims of lack of resources, local authorities have continued to expand their numbers of personnel by no fewer than 9,000 in the past five years. Available resources have continued to increase year by year in real terms. We are right to look to local authorities to run a tight ship and to deliver services effectively and efficiently over the next few years.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: If the Secretary of State is serious about saving public money, why is he so hell bent on foisting on the Scottish people an expensive and unwanted reorganisation of local government that even


the Government admit in their own White Paper will mean transitional costs of up to £196 million? Even in the long term in some parts of Scotland such as the Central region there will be no long-term savings at all. Will the Secretary of State abandon his expensive, gerrymandering proposals and refer the entire matter of Scottish local government reorganisation to an independent commission?

Mr. Lang: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer to an earlier question. Although the costs of reform may reach the level that he said, they will be offset rapidly by substantial savings that could be as high as £60 million a year. It is significant that the Labour-controlled council of Dundee has estimated savings for its council tax payers from the single-tier structure of more than £14 per household. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's new authority, when it is established, will estimate similar savings.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend cut through the tripe that we are hearing from Opposition Members and confirm that the public spending that he announced today represents the highest single sum available to any Secretary of State in Scotland's history and represents a figure of £50 per week for every man, woman and child living in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is a substantial increase. What matters is that we get value for money for the taxpayer who provides those resources. That is why I am looking to all those who are responsible for spending those resources to achieve the maximum in efficiency and investment that will yield good returns in the delivery of the services that they provide.

Mr. George Foulkes: On the trunk roads programme that he has announced, the Secretary of State mentioned the M74, the M8 and the A1, but not the long overdue A77-M77 link. Is that link included and, if not, why not?

Mr. Lang: The full roads programme has not yet been decided and announced. I hope that it will be possible for that scheme to get under way. There are certainly resources available.

Mr. George Kynoch: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that my constituents will welcome the real increases in health spending that is now 50 per cent. greater than in 1979, as well as the increased spending in agriculture? May I suggest that he may find the solution to the figures of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in the fact that he is talking about second-hand calculators that he has perhaps bought from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and that perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton should buy a new calculator?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The figures for health expenditure are certainly substantial—an increase in cash approaching £200 million. That will enable a 2·5 per cent. increase in patient activity to take place and a building programme of some £156 million.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State say something more about the roads programme? When will his Department's procedures in

relation to the extension of the M80 between Stepps and Haggs be concluded, and what is the likely date of the commencement of the work?

Mr. Lang: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question today, but I can tell him that there are 14 major projects currently under construction in Scotland and that the resources I have announced today will allow 11 new starts in the next three years.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Unlike the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who seemed to revel in doom and gloom, albeit somewhat inaccurately, may I express my welcome for my right hon. Friend's statement and especially for the further drive towards the equalisation of the uniform business rate? Is there an estimate of when the uniform business rate across the United Kingdom will finally be arrived at?

Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The need to harmonise business rates in Scotland arises from the high spending records of mainly Labour-controlled local authorities over the years. However, the £60 million that we have injected into the problem for the forthcoming year brings to £440 million the total of Government resources that have gone into bringing down business rates in Scotland. That is a substantial sum. We are now getting close to harmony with England and Wales, which I hope will be achieved in the next year or two.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Scottish Office is to continue to fund the mental illness specific grant? May I point out that a relatively small sum of money will be needed over the next three or four years but that such funding is especially important to those who suffer from traumatic brain injuries? May I go further and ask for an increase in the grant so that the rehabilitation needs of our fellow citizens suffering from such injuries can be advanced? It is a relatively small sum of money, but it is badly needed by the traumatic brain injury units.

Mr. Lang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I can not only reassure him of the survival of the mental illness specific grant but tell him of a proposed increase from £7 million to £10 million. That is an increase of about 40 per cent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that meets his concern.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when inflation is officially estimated to run at 3·5 per cent. next year, it is his policy and that of Chancellors to expect every public service worker in Scotland to have no increase in pay for the next three years and that he will judge his policy to be a success if he cuts workers' wages in that way?

Mr. Lang: First, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not be so gloomy about the rate of inflation. I know that the Opposition are not familiar with low inflation, but inflation is low and, as has been clearly proved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, shows every sign of staying so. The Scottish Office provision for direct running costs next year is zero. I expect the Scottish Office to achieve any increases in running costs through efficiency savings. If we are prepared to do that in Government Departments, we can expect local authorities and others to achieve the same efficiency savings.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the miserly increase in health expenditure, which, incidentally, is not adequate to cope with demographic shifts or increased technology, will not be spent on more managers with large, fast cars paid for at the expense of patient care? If public sector and health service workers are to have a pay freeze for the next three years, will there also be a freeze on managerial wages, fast cars and perks?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman was here for Scottish questions, so he will be aware of the fact that hospital trusts are now delivering patient care treatments more quickly and successfully than was the case before the trusts were established. It is in anticipation of the need to deliver more patient treatments that we are increasing the resources of the health service.
The hon. Gentleman talks of "miserly" expenditure, but I recall what happened under the previous Labour Government when health service budgets, capital spending and nurses' wages were cut by 30 per cent. After allowing for inflation, we have increased health spending by 50 per cent.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Library estimates that, after allowing for changed responsibilities, the Government's support expenditure for local authorities will fall during each of the next three years? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? Is he further aware that the Library estimates that in the year 1996–97 Welsh Office spending will rise by 3·5 per cent. more than Scottish Office spending? Does that mean that the Secretary of State for Wales is competent, or that the Secretary of State for Scotland is incompetent?

Mr. Lang: I am not responsible for expenditure levels in Wales. The settlement achieved by the Scottish Office is well up in the range of Government departmental settlements. As for expenditure levels in local government, the grant-aided expenditure will rise to £5,260 million, which is an increase of 2·23 per cent. net of the items being added to the authorities' responsibilities. As to overall expenditure, in Scotland it is some 30 per cent. higher per head than in England or Wales.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Given the apparently large increase in spending on agriculture, can the Secretary of State explain why support for crofters and hill farmers in less-favoured areas in the highlands and islands is to be cut next year? Surely those are the most marginal and hard pressed of the farming communities.

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my satisfaction that the incomes of hill farmers, particularly in the beef and sheep sectors, have risen very substantially in the last year or two. Support for them has also increased. The suckler cow premium will be up £14 million and the sheep annual premium will be up £28 million. Against that background, it is not unrealistic that the hill livestock compensatory allowance should be reduced by £9·5 million. There are many other demands on taxpayers' resources, but it is estimated that the agricultural programme in general will be substantially increased next year by more than 16 per cent.

Mr. David Marshall: The Secretary of State made no reference in his statement to

community-based housing associations, which do a good job in Scotland, particularly in the inner city areas. Will he clarify what his statement means for those associations? Will they receive an increase or a decrease and, if so, of how much? Will they be able to continue their essential work of housing rehabilitation, or will they be restricted to new building in conjunction with the private sector?

Mr. Lang: There will certainly be continuity of our commitment to housing associations. When I tell the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Homes budget will go up by 8·5 per cent. net, he will realise that the resources for housing generally next year are very substantial.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be no merry Christmas for the thousands of people who are homeless in Scotland? The last time we debated the issue, my constituency ended up with two more houses. Thousands of homeless people come to see every hon. Member. When will the Secretary of State give the people hope? When will houses that people can rent and afford to buy be built? When will the Secretary of State stop playing Scrooge and give our constituents a happy Christmas?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman now, even though it is a little early. Perhaps I should give him a new tie for Christmas, in view of the one that he is wearing.
The net capital programme for housing will be up by £25 million, or 4·3 per cent., next year. The local authorities' net capital programme on their home stock will be up 5·5 per cent. Those are substantial increases by any standard.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Given that the overall United Kingdom public spending settlement this year is the most savage and draconian of any in the lifetime of the Government, with overall cuts in real terms of 1·3 per cent. and cuts in the public sector capital investment of more than 10 per cent., will the Secretary of State say whether he has bucked that trend or merely concealed it? Will he tell us in simple terms the percentage change in overall expenditure, comparing this year's outturn expenditure with next year's planned expenditure? Will he tell us the percentage change in public sector capital investment, given the crucial nature of that for both employment and economic activity in general?

Mr. Lang: We do not know what the current year's outturn will be, because we are still in the middle of the year. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the £14 billion overall programme represents a 4·3 per cent. cash increase. Our capital gross spend will be over £3 billion, which represents a 5 per cent. increase.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if we had proper railway services in Lothian and Fife, there would be no need to contemplate spending millions of pounds of public money on a second dual carriageway and a second road bridge over the Firth of Forth? The A1 dual carriageway clearly needs to be extended, and I welcome that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but it would be helpful if he could give us an idea of the completion date for the extension of the dual carriageway towards Haddington and Dunbar.

Mr. Lang: I hope that it will be possible to make a start on the Tranent-to-Haddington section of the A1 in 1994–95. As for the railways, let me point out that huge expenditure went into upgrading the east coast line, which is of great interest to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Moreover, we propose to develop the west coast main line using private sector finance. Private sector finance should enable us to build still further on the progress that we are making with public resources in developing our transport infrastructure.

Mr. John McAllion: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the figures that he announced for housing spend may represent an increase on the planned spend for next year, when they are compared to the housing expenditure outturn for this year—and when the real level of inflation is taken into account for next year —they will almost certainly represent a cut in the Scottish housing budget?
According to the Department's own figures, over the 18 months to June this year Scottish local authorities were forced to sell just under 28,000 council houses to sitting tenants, while being able to complete fewer than 1,000. That represents a net shortfall of 27,000 council houses. How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify a cut in the housing budget at a time of record homelessness, and record dampness and condensation in the Scottish public sector housing stock?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems determined to try to confuse matters by comparing outturn with planned expenditure. If the outturn figures are different from the planned figures for 1993–94, it is equally likely that the outturn figures for 1994–95 will be different. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the sensible comparison is between planned figures for 1993–94 and planned figures for 1994–95. On that basic, the resources for housing should be more than sufficient to meet the needs.

Points of Order

Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you assist the House in deciding whether the rules governing the broadcasting of our deliberations here extend to tribunals that the Government set up outside? You will know, Madam Speaker, that Lady Thatcher is giving evidence to the Scott inquiry today, but no broadcasters will be present. Next month, the Prime Minister will give evidence to the same inquiry; again, no broadcasters will be present.
It seems extraordinary that, although when the Prime Minister speaks to the nation in this place his words are broadcast, no broadcasters will be present when he speaks to a tribunal that he himself set up. The public want to know what happened in the Iraq arms trade affair. Do the rules affecting this place also affect tribunals?

Madam Speaker: We make rules only for ourselves in the House. Our Select Committee on Broadcasting lays down the regulations; those regulations cover only us and our operations in the House.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Further to the point of order that I raised yesterday, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that, following the Opposition's failure to table an amendment to the Budget motions on the Order Paper, and following last night's vote on the amendment to the law, it will now not be possible for the Opposition to table an amendment on that issue at any stage during the passage of the Finance Bill?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is clearly well aware of our proceedings here, as his point of order yesterday showed. He will know that the issue that he has raised will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee debating the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me make the position quite clear, in case the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) misheard me. We have now finished debating the Budget in the House, and the point that he raised will be a matter for the Chairman when the Bill is in Committee.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have campaigned over a number of years on behalf of British nuclear tests veterans who were exposed to radiation at Christmas Island, Maralinga and other locations. Many have campaigned longer than myself.
On 11 November, I received a reply from the Prime Minister saying that a study commissioned by the Ministry of Defence into radiation exposure and its effects on service men would be published next spring. I have discovered that the National Radiological Protection Board has already notified people outside the House that it intends to hold a press conference tomorrow to reveal the report's contents. Is not that matter—which affects 20,000 ex-service people who obeyed instructions when undergoing national service—so serious that a statement


should be made to the House? Today, the Glasgow Evening Times reveals the conclusions of the board's report, yet the House is not to be told.

Madam Speaker: That matter is not for me at this stage, but I am sure that members of the Treasury Bench heard the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your ruling. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said during Prime Minister's questions that the Budget resolution as framed denied the House the right to vote on value added tax on domestic fuel. Later, in the debate on the amendment of the law, the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), said:
The first vote at the conclusion of tonight's debate will give us the chance to vote down VAT on gas and electricity."—[Official Report, 7 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 230.]
Who was correct—the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Lady?

Madam Speaker: The Speaker has great responsibilities, but is certainly not responsible for the utterances of any right hon. or hon. Member.

Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate to raise at this stage a point of order on the Sunday Trading Bill?

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait until we are in Committee, for that is the business of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is absolutely genuine.

Madam Speaker: Order. Am I to take it that the hon. Gentleman's other points of order were not genuine?

Mr. Riddick: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly earlier. I entirely understand that it is for the Chairman of the Committee on the Finance Bill to decide what is put before that Committee, but when the Bill returns to the House—for example, on Report—I imagine that you, Madam Speaker, will have to decide along with your advisers whether an amendment on the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel can be accepted. Would you be able to accept such an amendment after last night's vote on the amendment of the law?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order is real, but at this stage it is hypothetical. Whatever advice I receive, I make the final decision—as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. When the time comes, I shall be prepared to do so again.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 14th JANUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Richard Alexander
Mr. Michael Clapham
Mr. Oliver Heald

Orders of the Day — Sunday Trading Bill

(Clauses Nos. 1 and 2 and Schedule No. 4)

Considered in Committee

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a statement on how I intend to chair today's proceedings.
The Committee will see from my provisional list that there will be a single debate on the selected amendments to clause 1. Underlying that common debate are five competing proposals, each with a principal amendment to which is attached one or more related or consequential amendments. Details are set out in the Note on the selection list.
The procedure at the end of the debate will be as follows. The Committee will first dispose of the principal amendment then before it, amendment No. 35. If that amendment is agreed to, all the other amendments will fall except those related to amendment No. 35—that is, amendments Nos. 7 and 8—which will then be decided on. If amendment No. 35 is not agreed to, the Committee will turn to the next principal amendment, so that each of the principal amendments—Nos. 35, 1, 2, 3, and 21—will be taken in turn. Once one amendment is agreed to, the Committee will go directly to the amendment or amendments related to it and the remaining principal amendments will fall. If a principal amendment is disagreed to, we go at once to the next one.

Mr. Richard Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I accept your ruling in this matter—I do not disagree with it in any way. However, having seen your list of amendments and having listened to what you said, it is not clear to hon. Members who may be outside the House at present with which amendments we are dealing. As I understand it—and you may correct me—amendment No. 1 relates to total deregulation, the next one is Keep Sunday Special, and the next is the Shopping Hours Reform Council. It is important that hon. Members should enter the right Lobby for the right reason. If there is any way in which you could make it more clear which amendment is which, because it is not stated in your list of amendments, it would be helpful.

The Chairman: First, hon. Members should be in their places and those who are not here have only themselves to blame if they are confused. Secondly, I urge hon. Members to read the Note. It is not for the Chair to describe what particular amendments are colloquially known as; it is for the Chair to abide by the rules of the Committee. Nevertheless, the Note that I have written is there for all to see. We are starting with amendment No. 35, not amendment No. 1. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is clear on that point.

Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. My point relates to an issue that concerns hon. Members who do not have a problem with an extension of Sunday trading but who need to look carefully at the employment protections offered in the Bill to help us to


make a final decision on which clause we wish to support. It seems wrong that those of us who are taking that line cannot make an informed decision because the Committee will not be debating the employment protection aspects of the Bill in schedule 4 until after we have had the votes on the three different options. That puts those of us who do not object to extra trading on Sundays but who have serious worries about the efficacy of the employment protections offered in the Bill in a difficult situation. Would you consider changing the order so that we can have a debate on the employment protection aspects of the Bill before voting on the three different options? [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I would like to rule on that point of order and then see whether another point of order is necessary. First, it is the job of the Chair to take the Bill in the order that it is laid down. Secondly, only a business motion can alter that order, and that business motion must be tabled the night before. As matters stand this afternoon, the Chair is duty bound to take the order as it is laid down.

Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I would be grateful for your guidance. If by chance none of the recommendations is accepted by the Committee, what will happen? If I am right in saying that the matter will then be dealt with by a Committee upstairs, how will the composition of that Committee be determined, given that the House overwhelmingly voted for the Second Reading but that it did not necessarily mean that the hon. Members who voted for that Second Reading agreed on the approach to the options that should then be taken?

The Chairman: The composition of the Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection and has absolutely nothing to do with me, but hon. Members should be clear that the Bill has had a Second Reading so, of what decisions or non-decisions are made tonight, nevertheless the Bill will proceed to Committee.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It refers to the point of order that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) raised a moment ago. I accept your ruling, but do you advise the Committee that it will be quite in order at the end of the day for the Committee, if we do not believe that satisfactory provision is included in the Bill for protection of workers, at a later stage—whether it be today or in Committee upstairs—to reject the Bill on Third Reading or, indeed, in the House of Lords?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's supposition is entirely correct.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), if she is very concerned about the clauses which, perfectly properly, according to your ruling, cannot be taken until after the other vote has been taken, she would be well advised to vote for what is colloquially known as the Keep Sunday Special option.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As I understand it, the advice that you are giving to the Committee, following the point of order by my hon Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), is just that, namely, that if anyone has any reservations about

protection for workers' right not to work on Sunday, they should vote for the Keep Sunday Special option. I hope that the House fully understands that and acts upon it.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I am not giving any advice to any hon. Member on how they may or may not choose to vote. I call Sir Peter Emery to move amendment No. 35.

Sir Peter Emery: Mr. Chairman, I rise—

Mr. Ray Powell: O a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would you please give us an explanation—if you have already explained, I would not mind if you were to repeat it—as to why amendment No. 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), has taken precedence over the other options as contained in the Bill?

The Chairman: It might help the Committee if I explained that. It is a principle of the arrangement of amendments offered at the same point in a Bill that proposals to leave out some words and insert others take precedence over amendments simply to leave out words. Page 488 of the current edition of "Erskine May" makes that plain. The amendment paper before the Committee follows that principle, correcting yesterday's notices of amendments, which did not.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May the Committee have some ruling from you? We know that we are debating the five options today. The most powerful retail lobby outside is saying clearly that if we do not vote on the option that it prefers, it will continue to break the law. What is your guidance to the Committee and to those lobbyists outside?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means this evening; it is a matter for the courts.

Clause 1

ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES FOR REFORM OF LAW RELATING TO SUNDAY TRADING

Sir Peter Emery: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 1, leave out lines 5 to 17 and insert
'Schedules (Prohibition of trade in shops during Sunday morning) and 3 to this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (in this section referred to as "the appointed day").'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'sections' in line 7.
No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'Schedules' in line 1o. 
No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'Schedules' in line 12. 
No. 21, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'following', insert
'in respect of each local authority area'.
No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 23. 
No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out from 'such' to end of line 17 and insert
'day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (in this section referred to as "the appointed day")'.


No. 6, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'such' to end of line 17 and insert
'day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (in this section referred to as "the appointed day")'.
No. 25, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
'and different orders may specify different appointed days'.
No. 7, in page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'sections'. 
No. 26, in page 1, line 20, at end insert
'in the relevant local authority area'.
No. 8, in page 1, leave out lines 21 to 23. 
No. 29, page 1, line 21, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 23 and insert
'the local authority concerned have passed a resolution to the effect that such an order should be made in respect of that local authority area.'.
No. 32, in page 1, line 23, at end add
'(4A) An order under subsection (4) above shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.'.
No. 34, in page 1, line 23, at end add
'(4B) In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act and "local authority area" shall be construed accordingly.'.

Sir Peter Emery: At last, the House can decide. Everyone has known for too long that the present regulations concerning Sunday trading are a nonsense and, what is more, they have brought the law into disrespect many times. I hope today to be able to demonstrate that it is possible for us to make a sensible, common-sense and easily understood decision, which I hope that my amendment allows us to do.
It has been said that my amendment was put in at the last moment. I am sorry that, because I was on parliamentary duty at the meeting of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe parliamentary assembly, I could not be here for the Second Reading, but the amendment was tabled immediately on the conclusion of Second Reading. It was altered because it was tabled before I knew that the Government were going to amend their own Bill, which they had just published. Because the Bill had been amended I had to restructure my amendment so that it would do exactly the same as had always been intended. My amendment had to take account of the Government amendment.
4.30 pm
My amendment is simple and straightforward, and does only two things. It says that we should tighten the law to ensure that only a few special shops are allowed to open on a Sunday morning before 1 o'clock, but that after that time there would be complete deregulation.
I shall take the House through the details, because even I could not arrange for the schedule mentioned in the amendment to appear on the Order Paper today. I must therefore take the House clearly through what the schedule says. Basically, paragraph 2 says:
A shop shall not be open on Sunday for the serving of customers before 1 p.m.—unless… it is a special shop",
or is registered for the Jewish Sabbath. Paragraph 3 defines quickly and simply what a special shop would be:
A shop is a special shop by virtue of this paragraph if … the shop is a newsagent's shop and is open only for the sale of newspapers registered at the Post Office and published only on a Sunday"—

that is designed to ensure that everybody can still get their Sunday papers if they want to—
the shop is a registered pharmacy and is open only for the sale … or otherwise … of medicinal products or surgical appliances … the shop is a nursery or garden centre and is open only for the sale of plants, flowers and garden supplies and garden accessories".
That exemption could not be extended to allow the shop to sell food, or to compete in any way other than as a garden centre. A shop would also be special if:
the shop is a petrol filling station … the shop is at a designated airport … or … the trade or business carried on in the shop consists wholly or mainly of … the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises",
or alcohol
for consumption on those premises.
In other words, the place has to be a restaurant or cafe.

Mr. Graham Riddick: If I went to a newsagent to buy a newspaper at 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning, and decided that I needed to buy a couple of pints of milk at the same time, would my right hon. Friend's proposed arrangements allow me to do so?

Sir Peter Emery: No. That is clear; there is no doubt about it. The schedule says clearly that the shop must be:
open only for the sale of newspapers registered",
and that is all that would be allowed.

Mr. Paul Marland: As the Government seek to impose fewer and fewer regulations, does not my right hon. Friend believe that the ideas that he suggests would herald a welter of new regulations, and give rise to the most preposterous situations?

Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the whole of my speech before commenting, because the arrangement that I believe that he favours—complete deregulation—will not obtain the necessary majority to stand part of the Bill. In that case, the best that he can do is to support my amendment. I at least provide deregulation for half the day, and that is what he should urge me to do.
I envisage that the amendment will be completely and simply understood; its whole purpose is to provide unrestricted simplicity. The amendment is necessary because I do not believe that a majority exists for the three options offered in the Bill. What philosophy have I tried to adopt? I may be old fashioned, but I believe that the greatness of Great Britain has been based on Anglo-Saxon Celtic Christian philosophy and action. I believe—

Mr. Michael Fabricant: rose—

Sir Peter Emery: May I finish my sentence?
People who believe in that philosophy, although they may be in a minority, have the right to have their views heard. When we consider the protection of ethnic minorities in other ways, surely the rights of the Christian minority have to be considered.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument that Christians will be more likely to go to church if his amendment is carried?

Sir Peter Emery: I have not used that argument in any way and my hon. Friend knows that. If my hon. Friend were to go to any of the Christian churches—be it Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Church of England or even


some of the Catholic churches—they would urge that there should be protection for Sunday, and that Sunday should be different from the other days of the week.
The Keep Sunday Special campaign protects the whole of Sunday, but that is against the wishes of many people who wish to go shopping on Sunday. I believe that they have the right to be considered, and my amendment goes a long way towards doing that.

Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I will give way once more, and I suggest that I do not give way again until I come to the conclusion of my speech. If I have not answered questions by hon. Members by then, I shall be delighted to give way.

Mr. Banks: Will my hon. Friend explain the difference between allowing people to go to a garden centre on Sunday and prohibiting them from going to a DIY centre or a centre which specialises in the sale of furnishings or carpets?

Sir Peter Emery: The decision is not easy to make, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise. There is a great demand from people who can garden only at the weekend to be able to go to a garden centre, and, as I understand, there is considerable demand for that to be an exception in the Bill.
I believe that people should be allowed to arrange their lives as they want to. Therefore, there is particular strength to the argument of those who wish to see complete deregulation. I accept that; there is no doubt about it. If there were to be a referendum on the matter, that view would probably carry the day.
I am arguing that there are minorities which deserve to be protected. My amendment tries to provide a balance between two sections of society, and it will be able to cope with the problems which may arise. I was asked when I appeared on television about shops in stately homes. It seems that a noble Lord might well be able to go to church or to stay in bed, but he would not have to look after his shop in the morning.
What are the weaknesses of the alternatives? The weakness of the Keep Sunday Special campaign is that it does not take into account the vast number of people who want to be able to shop on Sunday. That is a real weakness, and I am sorry about it. The people involved in the campaign claim—wrongly, I believe—that they should regulate people's lives. I believe that if people wish to shop on Sunday, they do not expect the law to stop them doing
so.
I have outlined the case made by the Church and there cannot be one hon. Member who has not had a host of letters from religious organisations demanding that protection be given so Sunday can be different from other days. The amendments relating to the Keep Sunday Special campaign are nonsense in many areas. First, what about the extent of the regulations on the square footage of shops? Who is to do the measuring? How will it be carried out? Who will check it? What is 280 sq m? Is it 17 by 18 sq yds? That is about the size of the centre of the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned garden centres, but I note that video recordings are to be sold. What about tapes, records and the machines used to play them on? Are they in or out? What about a

florist? Can it sell only cut flowers and plants; and what about artificial flowers? In fact, small shops in general are an area of contention.
The Keep Sunday Special regulations are too detailed, and the House should not be attempting to go in for more detail. We need a simple conclusion to this matter.
I come now to total deregulation. I have already said under cross-questioning that the weakness of this option is that it does not pay due regard to the large number of people who have a right to be considered. It does not seem right to me that we should ride roughshod over such people, and my amendment would go a long way to ensuring that that does not happen.
In some ways my amendment attempts to replace the third àlternative. The Shopping Hours Reform Council proposal attempts to bridge the differences between Keep Sunday Special and complete deregulation, but fails to do so. It is not as simple or as sensible as my amendment, for the following reasons.
Which of us wants to load on to local authorities the necessity of keeping a register of everything that goes on? Local government already complains that it is given too much to do by central Government with too little money to do it. I see no point in making local authorities responsible for this additional workload.
Furthermore, who will decide what constitutes the allowed six hours out of eight? Who will check? Who is to know precisely how many hours a shop stays open? To those who favour keeping Sunday special I should point out that my amendment at least keeps it special until 1 pm, whereas the alternative we are discussing would allow opening from 10 am. Some bigger shops would be allowed to open too—but how big?
The great advantage of my amendment is its simplicity and its lack of regulations to be enforced—

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: I find my right hon. Friend's argument confusing. In attempting to keep Sunday special in the morning he has fallen into the trap of allowing certain elements of trade to go on, which is not so special. Why is it, in his logic, that those who wish to eat cannot buy food, whereas those who wish to read or garden occupy a superior state?

Sir Peter Emery: People who want to eat in a restaurant can do so—the amendment allows for that. I am sorry; if people want to go to a grocer's shop, they will have to wait until 1 pm.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposals are more restrictive for newsagents than the provisions in the Shops Act 1950, in that they would prevent them from selling until 1 pm many things that they can legally sell now?

Sir Peter Emery: I had not intended that. If it can be proved to me, we can alter it easily enough in Committee, because it is more a Committee point than a general one —[HON. MEMBERS: "We are in Committee."] Indeed we are, but I meant when we go into Committee upstairs, as opposed to a Committee of the whole House. The Government themselves may want to tighten up certain legal niceties there.
I do not say that my amendment is watertight, but I do say that the principle is right. My proposal will be just as open to amendment in Standing Committee as any other.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I commend my right hon. Friend's efforts to try to find a way through many of our problems with Sunday trading, but I am anxious to know how, under this amendment, the many corner shops run by people who are not Christians will be monitored. Does he really believe it to be a good thing that such shops will be closed, the more so since they serve the needs of the elderly and others who cannot get to the larger stores at any time?

Sir Peter Emery: I ask my right hon. Friend to come to my constituency, where she would learn that those who most strongly oppose deregulation are the elderly. They are not asking for reform; they want to ensure that at least Sunday morning is kept special, and they would be happy to go along with what I have said.

Mr. Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman has been rather scathing about regulation, but if, as his amendment proposes, mornings are to be kept free, there must be some regulation to ensure that shops do not open on Sunday mornings. Would there not have to be a check on newsagents to ascertain that they sold only newspapers? The right hon. Gentleman is therefore not against every sort of regulation to make sure that Sunday is kept special, at least in part.

Sir Peter Emery: I always enjoy crossing swords with the hon. Gentleman; it is fun. His point is relevant to some degree—but only to a small degree. My amendment provides for fines of £50,000 for those who break the law —that would apply under any of the options, I believe. Mine is no different.
The verdict on all this, sent to many Members of Parliament and giving us the views of Mr. Anthony Scrivener QC, was rather interesting. The legal opinion is that the Keep Sunday Special option in the Bill
presents no more difficulty in interpretation or enforcement than many other statutes currently in force".
I am disappointed; I was hoping for something more simple than what is in force, given our difficulties with so much of the current law. We want to avoid complication at all costs, and that is exactly what my amendment proceeds to do. It is a common sense approach and an approach that can be understood by everyone. There are no ifs or buts about it. It requires no local government registration and little or no real monitoring—and it discards worries about floor size.
On the subject of floor size, what would happen if a 280 sq ft shop that was trading successfully wanted to expand by adding another 30 sq ft? Would it be outside the regulations then? Does that make sense? Should businesses be prevented from the benefits of expansion? That is clearly nonsense.
4.45 pm
The KSS option is designed to protect the whole day, but I do not believe that that option and that for total deregulation command majority support in the House. In that case, my amendment should attract the support of certain Opposition Members because, of all the alternatives, it offers the best chance of keeping Sunday special until 1 pm rather than until 10 am, as offered in the third alternative.
If hon. Members have any doubts about whether the KSS option will fall, they should, at the outset, go through the Lobby in support of my amendment. That is the best thought that I can offer. If hon. Members wish to save some

part of their preferred option they should line up behind me in support of my amendment. Similarly, those in favour of total deregulation will not win, so they should support my amendment, which offers partial deregulation for half of the day.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Would it not be better to turn the argument the other way round? If people want to keep Sunday special in any way, the only proper means of doing so is by voting for the KSS option.

Sir Peter Emery: That argument could be put, but it does not make sense. Under my amendment, hon. Members will get half of what they want rather than none of it. I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he will not win tonight, so the sooner that he supports my amendment the better for him.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether his idea could be amended in Committee to allow all small shops but no large shops to open in the morning? Such a simple proposal would command a great deal of support.

Sir Peter Emery: There is nothing in my schedule to prevent such an amendment from being made. It would have to be selected by the Chairman and carried by the Committee. I cannot, therefore, give an absolute answer to my hon. Friend except to say that, were I to serve on the Committee, I would listen to the argument and judge whether it was acceptable. The argument may well make good sense.
There is no doubt about the fact that my amendment is a compromise. Compromises are not necessarily disadvantageous and many a time good British compromises have proved to be right. I believe that my amendment represents a fair solution, which meets both points of view. It is a common sense solution and it has a simplicity about it which none of the other amendments offers. I ask the House to support my amendment.

Mr. Pike: I do not intend to support amendment No. 35, but I wish to discuss the other amendments selected in the group. I must make it clear that I will support the Retailers for Shops Act Reform-Keep Sunday Special compromise proposal when we vote. I will not, therefore, spend much of my speech on that of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery).
My view has changed little since we last debated this issue in 1986. On that occasion, the Government were defeated by 14 votes on the Shops Bill, which originated in the other place.
Today's Bill was given its Second Reading last week and we are now debating the proposed options. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was right to raise a point of order about the difficulties that many of us face in trying to debate any of the options, because, when deciding whether to allow the Bill to proceed, the overriding factor must be acceptable protection for workers. Given the Government's track record on pay and trade unions, I have grave doubts that they will deliver a Bill with acceptable protection for workers. I shall say no more about that because that matter will be dealt with in the debate on the next group of amendments.
I agreed also with the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who said that if there was any doubt about the protection to be offered to workers, hon. Members who might be minded to


go further than the RSAR-KSS option should support that option as the minimum one, because the overriding factor was worker protection.

Mr. Sheerman: I do not intend to criticise my hon. Friend, but I should like to jog his memory. He said that he has not changed his mind much since the 1986 debate, but, at the end of it, we agreed that some change to Sunday trading legislation was necessary. We agreed that do-it-yourself centres, garden centres and small shops should be allowed to open so long as workers were offered adequate protection. I must remind him that our opinion has changed a great deal. The option that we prefer represents real, flexible change that will help the consumer.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is right and that is why I advocate the RSAR-KSS option. I know that my hon. Friend and I have been persuaded by the wisdom of it, but those hon. Members who wish to go beyond that option and who care about worker protection should think carefully about doing so. They should be wary of going further and they should not be conned by the Government. Therefore, although they might not vote for the RSAR-KSS option on the grounds advocated by my hon. Friend and by me, they should do so for slightly different reasons. Given the Government's track record, those hon. Members should provide workers with the safeguard offered by that option.
I was a member of the Committee on the Bill that became the Local Government Act 1988 and the present Home Secretary was the Minister responsible for the legislation. I always recall that when I moved a particular amendment he said that I always wore my GMB union hat. He said that I wanted council workers to be paid double time on a Sunday. Such a comment is fundamental to today's debate because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was opposed to such payments then and he is still opposed to them. That is why we should not support the option advocated by him.

Mr. John Marshall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, USDAW, has sent a letter to a number of hon. Members, which states:
Your support is crucial to ensure the six hour option receives a clear majority support.
Does he accept that USDAW and the Transport and General Workers Union support the option advocated by the Shopping Hours Reform Council and not the option that he supports?

Hon. Members: Not true.

Mr. Pike: I will never listen to anyone from the Conservative party who tries to use the trade union movement to influence our view. What the hon. Gentleman has quoted is a load of rubbish. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is in the letter.") I have seen that letter, but I am also aware that particular motion was not carried at USDAW's annual conference. I do not want to fall out with USDAW. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I do not.
Conservatives often accuse the Labour party of jumping when the trade unions so demand and suggest that we are under their tight control. On a free vote, however, the Labour party is completely at liberty to advocate a particular case, unlike some Conservative Members who

have been paid by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, which has spent substantial amounts of money to try to persuade hon. Members how to vote on the issue.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I support the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Is it not an absolute slur on certain Conservative Members to say that those who support the Shopping Hours Reform Council have been paid by that organisation, when we have not been? Moreover, if we had been, and we have not, we would have made a statement in the Register of Members' Interests.

The Chairman: Order. That was a helpful point of order and I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee listened to what the hon. Gentleman said.

5 pm

Mr. Pike: I was not casting any slur but was simply referring to the vast amount that has been spent by that organisation to persuade people which option they should support in the debate. If anybody believes that Sainsbury and Tesco have put money into SHRC for the benefit of their workers or the public, he is kidding himself.

Mr. Donald Anderson: If my hon. Friend wishes to test the credibility of the claim of those large stores to be acting in the public and consumer interest, he should look at the way in which they used legal devices—the planning laws—to attempt to stop the warehouse development in east London. Had they been so interested in consumer protection, perhaps they would have taken a different view. Surely that undermines the credibility of their claim to be acting in favour of the consumer and shows conclusively that they are concerned with their market share and not with the public interest.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, as he always does on these matters. The vast control being gained by a small number of supermarkets in the grocery retail trade in Britain is a growing worry to many of us. Four big supermarket chains are controlling an ever-increasing share of the market. They now tell manufacturers what size products should be and what cuts of meat there should be. They are controlling the market, not in the best interests of the public but because they can make substantial profits.
In the debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred, the point was made that one additional shopping day would not increase the amount of trade. The same financial limitations apply whether we have six or seven shopping days.
The superstores trade successfully because they sell a higher volume of products in relation to the number of staff they employ. Contrary to the claim that superstores create jobs, if one were to analyse the position across the board, it would become clear that superstores lead to job losses. I am sure that, if they were allowed to trade on Sundays, they would not save jobs or create employment and there would be bigger job losses.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Pike: I shall make one point before giving way as it ties in with what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said.
One retailer in my constituency, Christopher Redman of T. Redman and Co. Ltd., wrote to me, saying:


In asking for your support, I would also ask you to bring your influence to bear in seeking a speedy resolution to this important piece of legislation. We have lived with the nonsense of the 1950 Shops Act for long enough.
I believe that there is an overwhelming view that, provided we can get an acceptable solution with worker protection, we should remove the Shops Act from the statute book.

Dr. Robert Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in April, London Economics published a paper stating that there would be a net loss from deregulation of 20,000 jobs? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that helpful.

Mr. Pike: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making such a valid point.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Gentleman referred to the interests of consumers. Does he agree that, if all shops, including food shops, were allowed to open on Sunday, inevitably the cost of living of ordinary families would increase? The extra opening hours on Sunday, with their added wage costs, including overtime, would proportionately be far in excess of the extra trade generated in food and that would increase prices, to the detriment of the standard of living of ordinary families.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. If workers are to be given proper remuneration for working on Sundays, exactly that will happen. We will avoid that only if shops are not prepared to give workers the payment that they should get for Sunday working.
Before I became a Member, I worked in a glass factory which had to operate seven days a week. I am not totally against the principle of working on Sundays, but that was clearly my choice and I was remunerated very well for working them. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) makes an important point.
I shall now get into the main thrust of the debate and say why I believe that the Keep Sunday Special-RSAR option should be given the approval of the House.
I want to go back to the letter from Mr. Redman which states:
Total or partial deregulation would have dire consequences not just for hard working retailers like me, but for our customers, many of whom lack the ability to get to a superstore regularly —and in any case, like popping into their local convenience store. It is part of the fabric of community life".
That is a crucial part of the debate. We should not assume that in 1993 everyone in Britain has a motor car and can get to a superstore.
If superstores are allowed to open on Sundays, more public transport will be needed, but, once again, elderly, disabled and sick people will be disadvantaged. They will not be able to take advantage of Sunday opening and more corner stores and grocers' shops will disappear.
So many corner shops have disappeared over the past few years. They are an important part of the fabric of the nation, and we have a duty to ensure that they remain in existence for the sick, the disabled and the elderly.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I am most confused by what the hon. Gentleman said. If fewer people can get to the superstores because they do not have transport, he does not have to worry that superstores will be crammed with

people on a Sunday, nor does he have to worry about the small stores. Surely, in any event, the people about whom he is concerned will shop in corner stores.

Mr. Pike: If more trade is attracted to the superstores, there will be less trade for the corner shops. I accept that a large proportion of the people to whom I referred may not use corner shops. However, some of the people who use superstores also use the corner shops at certain times. If they do not do so because they go to a superstore on Sunday, they will make the corner shops vulnerable, some of which will go out of business.

Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike: I shall carry on for a while as I am mindful of the time and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall give way again in a few moments.
I want to make one strong condemnation of large stores such as Sainsbury and Tesco and others that have chosen to break the law to change it. We live in a democratic society and with an elected House of Commons and this place makes the law. It is for those stores to operate within the law. I disagreed with the poll tax, but I never supported the breaking of the law. I believed that the way to change it was through the ballot box. I asked the management of Sainsbury, and others who believe that it is right to break the law, whether it was right to break a law to try to change it, because once one goes down that dangerous path one is on a road to anarchy, which is unacceptable.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman find it remarkable that a quite senior person at Sainsbury wrote to inform those working under him that promotion prospects would definitely depend on their being able to work on Sundays? That was immediatley disowned—I brought the matter up in the House, so it is on the record—by the chairman of Sainsbury when he realised that that chap had let the cat out of the bag.
Exactly the same happened with W. H. Smith. One of its managers at Milton Keynes wrote a similar letter, which, of course, was immediately disowned, but relatively senior people are sending out such letters, showing that they are going to disregard the law. It is only because the cat has been let out of the bag that the top brass are denying it.

Mr. Pile: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. It is rare that the hon. Lady and I agree on any issue, but on this issue I agree with her 100 per cent.

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mr. Pike: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
I referred to pay but I did not refer to the choice that faces workers. The Bill will offer workers no protection. We know that it will affect promotion prospects. Job applicants will be asked whether they are willing to work on Sunday and those who are not will not get jobs.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the fact that the issue of law and order is fundamental to the debate. Does he recall that, on Second Reading, I asked the Home Secretary to make it unequivocally clear that, if the Committee accepted the KSS-RSAR option, he would strictly enforce its decision? I received no reply to that request, but I hope that I shall today. Nor did I receive a reply to the suggestion


that, before we vote tonight, Ministers should seek an undertaking from the major lawbreakers that they will abide by any decision of the House of Commons.

Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. We all know that the challenge of the superstores and the big trading groups was taken to Europe and to the House of Lords. They knew that what they were doing was illegal under the 1950 Act. They were playing for time, but because they had money, and were able to make more, they were prepared to drag the system along.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I must correct the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not reply. My right hon. and learned Friend made it perfectly clear that local authorities would continue to be responsible for enforcing the law, which is one of the KSS-RSAR options. If the right hon. Gentleman and those who support KSS or any of the other options had wanted them enforced in any other way, they would have suggested different options.

Mr. Alfred Morris: That is the Pontius Pilote stance.

Mr. Pike: The Minister fudges the issue. It confirms what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said. He repeated what has been said many times when questions have been asked about enforcement—that it is a matter for local authorities. The Government should have given a lead. The Home Secretary should have given a directive that authorities should carry out the law of the land—it would not have been out of order for him to do so.

Mr. Lloyd: I have said from the Dispatch Box many times, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that all members of the public and all organisations should obey the law, including the law on Sunday trading.

Mr. Pike: The Minister may say that, but the Government did nothing to make it happen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe is absolutely right when he says that they are unlikely to do so again.
We should be asking Sainsbury, Tesco and others—if the option that they do not want is carried today—whether they will accept the will of the Committee and, ultimately, accept the Bill when it is enacted.

Mr. Marland: I thought that the objective of the debate was to try to tidy up the law, which local authorities will have to enforce once it has been sorted out. It is precisely because the law is in such a mess that we are having the debate. I wanted the hon. Gentleman to give way earlier because he said that we live in a democratic society and that he is a democrat. I hope that, before the end of his speech, he will say a few words about the millions of people who want to shop on Sunday and, when they have the opportunity of voting with their feet, do so by shopping on a Sunday. It would not be fair if he did not say something about them as well.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has confused two issues. He should allow me to make my own speech and make the case that I am trying to make.

If he doubts that Sainsbury and Tesco knew that it was illegal for them to sell probably 80 per cent. of the items that they sold under existing legislation, he is kidding himself and misleading the Committee. I know that he is not stupid enough to believe that they did not know what items they could or could not sell.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Surely the core issue is that, with the best will in the world, more often than not local authorities do not have the resources to investigate and, ultimately, to prosecute. It behoves the Home Secretary to ensure that local authorities have the power to enforce the law.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. So often, the Government put responsibilities on local authorities, such as to administer mandatory grants and so on. We could have a long debate on that, and if we did, you would rule us out of order, Mr. Morris. The Government place responsibility on local authorities but do not give the finance to carry out their responsibilities.
I shall refer to another letter that I have received on breaking the law, not from a constituent but from Rev. Ray Skinner, the rector of the St. Lawrence church in Morden. I do so for sentimental reasons—I was married there 31 years ago to the very day. The final paragraph is relevant to my point. It says:
If the big Stores, through their recent wilful breaking of the law can change it to their own advantage, what example is this to previously law-abiding citizens? No law, or lax law may cost less to enforce than good law in the short term, but please do not vote for the god of money. Please, vote for the 'KSSC/RSAR' option.
That underlines the point that I am trying to make.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Has the hon. Gentleman received letters from people who are employed on Sunday by the stores to which he referred, saying that they need their earnings to pay the mortgage, because they are students or because of other factors? Does he not think that, despite the fact that one is bound to be concerned about people who are in that position, immoral, indirect presssure has been exerted on Members, and that that pressure should not have been exerted because it has been brought about by illegality?

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has made a point that I was not going to make in my speech. However, because I wish to deal with the issue honestly, I accept that I have received some letters that made that point. I have also received letters from people who are employed by Sainsbury and by others, which say that the story that they are told by management is very different from the reality. They are under considerable pressure to work on Sundays. If one is fair and balanced about it—

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pike: If my hon. Friend will just let me finish my sentence, I will gladly give way to her, because I know that she has been trying to make a point for some time. I have letters from both groups, a number of which make it clear that people are under considerable pressure.

Ms Jackson: Only today, my office received a telephone call from an under-manager in a retail store, who would give neither his name nor that of his employer. The message that he wished to impart, which is of particular significance as the Committee is debating the issue today, is that he was told by his manager that if he refused to work on Sunday, he could give up any hope of promotion.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that example. It underlines our fears about what will happen. We all know that those dangers are real and that no Act of Parliament can prevent abuses from taking place. Even if the Government were generously minded on employment protection issues—they are not—it would be impossible for such protection to be enforced.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he has already given way many times. Is it not interesting that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, including myself, have received letters from the employees of perhaps the two most successful and dynamic retailers—Marks and Spencer and the John Lewis Partnership—saying, thank God, that their organisations have no intention of opening on Sundays?

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes another valid point. The case presented by both managers and partners in the John Lewis Partnership is a good one. I think that the workers are in some way involved in the management of John Lewis. Although I do not know the details of that scheme, I know that it is unique.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if an incredibly unlikely event were to occur and proper worker protection were written into the Bill, there would be no prospect, if Sunday became a free-for-all as some Conservative Members wish, of protection for the associated workers who would be put under increasing pressure to work on a Sunday?

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, if the SHRC option or total deregulation were to be carried today, there would be pressure on car park attendants, delivery people, bus drivers and others to work.
I appeal to my hon. Friends who have any inclination to vote for deregulation or for the SHRC option to understand that, once we have breached the principle that Sunday is special, people who have to work on Sundays—as I did —will be unlikely in a few years to get double pay. Once Sunday is just an ordinary day, employers will not want to pay anything special for it. Deregulation would be the thin end of the wedge. It would lead to a breaching of an important principle that has applied for a long time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Pike: I shall not give way for a while now because I have been extremely generous so far.
I want to refer to a few letters from my constituency. P.D. Lees, the general manager of Warburton's, a family baker, has said:
There is no doubt that if our customers, the most important of which are the large multiple retailers, were to open seven days they would expect bread deliveries on Sunday. Competition in the industry and the power of these key customers is such that it is very unlikely we would be able to resist. Margins in the industry are so slim that the considerable extra cost in distribution and production which would result would have to be passed on to our customers.
In a slightly different way, the hon. Member for Twickenham was making the same point—that the customers will pay for the privilege if we go along with deregulation.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has already intervened once.
I have used the example of bread; as well as baking bread, that firm sells it. If we have deregulation or the SHRC option, not just the corner shops but the character shops that make Burnley different from Blackburn, Blackburn different from Caerphilly and Caerphilly different from Chester will be under attack. They give towns their character. They give a personal service in a personal way, whether in a specialist sausage shop in Clitheroe—I know that a number of people went in there when there was a by-election in that area—or in a shop run by a greengrocer, a baker or a butcher. Specialist shops are under threat. They will gradually disappear from our high streets, with a resulting loss of character, if either of the proposals is accepted.
I have another letter, from the Bishop of Blackburn, Alan Chesters. He says of the Bill:
In my view, it effectively removes any safeguards to the character of Sunday. It would also have a severe effect on the well-being of small shops, which provide a vital service to so many, particularly those without a car or too old or frail to venture far for their shopping. Many elderly people, lone parents and people on low incomes are dependent on local shops. During the last thirty years, the number of independent grocery outlets has fallen from 116,000 to 32,800. Many of those which still survive depend upon the custom of those who 'top up' on their main shopping.
Such shops are vulnerable and might go if we voted for deregulation.
Marks and Spencer has said that, if the vote goes the wrong way, it
will lead to the closure of thousands of small shops, the further decline of the High Street, less consumer choice and higher prices.
Those who do not believe that that is true are kidding themselves.

Mr. James Couchman: The hon. Gentleman has quoted Marks and Spencer. Does he know of any plans that it has to close its shops in Scotland?

Mr. Pike: We are not debating Scotland. I accept that Marks and Spencer has recently opened a couple of shops there. I am not speaking on behalf of Marks and Spencer. I am telling the Committee the good reasons why the company is against the principle of the extension of Sunday opening in England.

Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to help him. It is well known that Marks and Spencer does not wish to trade on Sunday in Scotland. It has been forced, although it does not want to be forced, by market share—

The Chairman: Order. The Bill does not relate to Scotland.

Mr. Pike: You underline the point that I was making, Mr. Morris. We are not dealing with Scotland.
Marks and Spencer has made the point clearly that, if we accept deregulation or the SHRC option, small shops and specialist shops will not survive. For example, the National Association of Health Stores has sent a letter to all hon. Members, saying:
Free for all Sunday trading would place a further burden on these individuals. Many would not survive and the very special services they provide to the community would be lost.
That again underlines the case that the specialist shops will disappear. I have here a letter from Timpson Shoe Repairs Ltd., saying:


Within five years, cobblers will start to disappear. In 10 years, half of them will be gone—forever—but will it be for the better?
Kwik Save has three stores in my constituency. Graeme Bowler, the managing director, says:
My very recent experience of retailing in Australia confirms that the combination of large new out-of-town retail developments and a move to deregulate trading has a devastating effect on high street, village communities and the many small traders whose livelihoods depend on them.
Iceland has said:
Be under no illusion. Schedule 4 of the Sunday Trading Bill 'Rights of Shop Workers' offers absolutely no protection.
That is right. Workers will suffer and consumers will pay the price for deregulation. If we do not go for the KSS-RSAR option, we shall make a sad mistake and the people of this country will blame us for years to come.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I wish the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) a happy wedding anniversary. The church in which he was married 31 years ago is in my constituency and is especially beautiful. I am sure that he has many fond memories of that day, and may he see another 31 years of happy marriage.
I listened carefully to what has been said on amendment No. 35 moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I wanted to support it because if anyone could come through the debate and suggest a solution that was both workable and answered all the various questions that have arisen, I was willing to listen. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about the issues that surround Sunday trading.
I have said on a number of occasions that the most important task that faces the House is to ensure that we pass a law that is enforceable. The present situation is nonsensical. Most right hon. and hon. Members feel extremely uncomfortable with the fact that people are unable to work the existing law and instead are breaking it. None of us wishes to see that continue.
I must declare immediately that the most sensible decision would be in favour of total deregulation. I know that a number of hon. Members will take a different view. I am perfectly willing to listen to their arguments and perfectly willing to accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be able to bring themselves to vote for total deregulation. I ask them only to listen to the points that I wish to make.
If we wish to have a law that is easily enforceable, we should pass a law that does not contain any regulation, under which people can act on their own behalf and make decisions whether to open their shops. There would then be no need to worry who enforces it, whether the Government or the local authorities. Retailers would simply assess demand and ask themselves, in view of that demand, whether they wanted to open on some Sundays, every Sunday or not open on any Sunday.

Ms Joan Walley: How does the right hon. Lady see her option of deregulation fitting in with the enforcement of proposals for employment protection and the protection of those workers who will be working on Sundays?

Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Lady will be able to debate that issue more closely later. I am comfortable with the way in which the Bill currently stands for the protection

of people who may or may not wish to work on Sundays. That issue seems to be set out clearly and does not present a problem to me; the notion that causes problems is the idea that we should in some way have to set out in great detail exactly who may shop on Sundays, where they may shop, what they may buy and into what type of store they may go. It is for that principal reason that the House should consider the possibility of total deregulation to make a clear and understandable law.

Mr. Peter Luff: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument, no restriction on what people can or cannot buy is implied in any of the options before the Committee. It is a type of shops approach, not a type of goods, approach.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I wish that that were so. Unfortunately, after carefully reading the schedules it seems to me that there are a number of restrictions on what people can buy because the schedules say what can or cannot be sold.

Mr. Couchman: May I rebut the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff)? One category of shops that would not be allowed to open is antique shops. Browsing around antique shops is a classic leisure time activity and people will not buy antiques at motorway service stations or in tobacconists. People will not be able to buy antiques on Sunday, so my hon. Friend is quite wrong.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.

Mr. Sheerman: rose—

Dame Angela Rumbold: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but first I wish to make a little progress.
A great deal has been made of the issue that Sunday is a special day of the week. It is no secret to hon. Members who have listened to previous debates that I do not like shopping at all and that little would persuade me to go shopping on a Sunday. Having said that, I know how I can choose to make my Sunday a different day and I do not see that it is my job as a legislator or as an individual to say that nobody else may shop on a Sunday. If people want Sunday to be a special day—many of us want to choose how we spend days at weekends, although a large number of people work—many of us would choose according to the needs and wishes of our families. Parliament should allow people the opportunity to make that decision for themselves.
Why do we as legislators have not only to tell people whether they can open shops on Sundays, where they can shop and what they can buy, but to tell them that they are not allowed to buy certain items on Sundays? It seems an extraordinary business. It is almost like sitting on a local authority planning committee and then on the development control committee and starting to think about whether people can put their dustbins behind or in front of the back door. I thought that as legislators we had grown a little more than that in this great Parliament. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think about that issue a little more.

Mr. Marland: We have heard a lot about added costs if shops open on Sundays or have restricted Sunday opening. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the difficulty with cost will be due to the policing and patrolling of those shops, big or small, to determine whether they are selling


goods that are not allowed? Would not that cost the taxpayer and the shopper a great deal of money compared with total deregulation, which will not cost anything?

Dame Angela Rumbold: I want to come on to that issue as my third point. I was especially concerned at Opposition Members saying that they felt that the Government and not local authorities should police whatever system the Committee chooses. As a democrat, I am perfectly prepared to accept the will of the Committee, whichever way hon. Members vote. I want to see that carried to its logical conclusion and I most certainly want to see it vigorously enforced.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Anyone who reads the Second Reading debate in Hansard will see that the Opposition challenged the Government on the issue that they should not and must not stand aside if a decision of the House is trampled on by people whose motive is to steal their market share from law-abiding retailers. The right hon. Lady says that she does not want to instruct other people. She sent a letter to all Members of Parliament saying:
Option 1: Total Deregulation—Yes. Option 2: Regulation/ Restriction (KSSC/RSAR)—No. Option 3: Partial Deregulation (SHRC)—Yes
She has been telling hon. Members to do that in the debate. I hope that they will make up their own minds.

Dame Angela Rumbold: All of us would accept that when one is sometimes asked for guidance, one is entitled to give that guidance and that people are willing to accept it. It is entirely up to hon. Members to make up their own minds. I simply tell them the answer to the question asked. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should object to that. His argument about local authorities is fallacious. If Parliament decides to opt for one of the options requiring policing by local authorities, we must recognise that those authorities are the vehicle through which that policing will be done. That is perfectly right and proper. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is the way in which many laws at local level are enforced. I think that the majority of hon. Members would understand and accept that.

Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Lady is misleading the Committee through her interpretation of the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). What he said on Second Reading and what we have said earlier today was not that we want central Government to be in charge; of course, regulation should work through local authorities. We want it made clear—and we wanted it made clear when she was a Minister—that it is as wrong for the rich fat cats such as Sainsbury, Tesco and Argyll to break the law democratically as it is for a youngster to burgle a house or steal a car. Whatever the circumstances, the law should be honoured. Ministers have not stood up and said that the law must be obeyed, whoever administers it.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I believe that it is wrong for people to break the law—it is wrong for the large stores and the very small stores to break the law. As I acknowledged when I was a Minister, small stores have been breaking the law. All those which have been opening on Sundays have been breaking the Shops Act 1950. Many stores have also been breaking it in terms of the products

that they have been selling. That was the case under the Labour Government, right up until now. That is undeniable. We should have a law that is enforceable, which is why we are holding this debate today. It is interesting to see how difficult it is to get hon. Members to agree.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the issues to be considered is the cost of goods sold by the various shops? Is she aware that, in my constituency, one can buy a bundle of branded groceries for £13·74 at Food Giant, a shop that the Keep Sunday Special campaign would close, but that at 7-Eleven, which the campaign would allow to remain open, the same bundle of goods costs £18·35? Why should my constituents be deprived of the right to buy cheap milk, bread and other goods in order to keep some hon. Members happy?

Dame Angela Rumbold: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. My solution would resolve the problem. I suspect that if there were total deregulation such matters would come to a natural conclusion.
I am deeply disturbed by some of the impositions that we would place on local authorities if we opt for one of the regulatory options. It is true that local authorities have been under considerable pressure for a number of years to manage their affairs effectively. It is interesting to note that, while a number have tried to enforce the 1950 Act, others have merely said that it has been impossible for them to police the Act efficiently. My concern is that a restrictive option such as the KSS-RSAR option would place an even greater burden on local authorities as they would have to employ more people to police the Act. There would be armies of people rushing around the streets trying to ensure that shops were not selling what they should not be selling. It would therefore cost a fortune merely to ensure that the legislation was being observed, and it would not be too long before the House was again forced to consider a law that it had become almost impossible for local authorities to monitor.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely, the essence of local authorities' objection is that, if they seek to enforce the Act not against individual stores but against the major retailers which are together seeking to defy the law, they put so much of their council tax payers' money at risk. For example, is the right hon. Lady awere that if Kirklees council had lost its case against Wickes in the House of Lords, perhaps on a technicality, it would have risked in excess of £250,000 of its own money? No local authority would dare to risk such a large proportion of its resources. The Government were opting out of enforcement but, had the Attorney-General so wished, they could have stepped into the place of the local authorities. While the right hon. Lady was at the Home Office, she did precisely nothing to help.

Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman has made my case for me about the law as it stands, showing the difficulties that there have been in enforcing it. I hope that he will now help us. To a certain extent, the debate is about how we can reduce the burden on local authorities. We are asking hon. Members not to make life more difficult for them or put them into a similar position to that of Kirklees council.

Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend is using two arguments. She says that she wants no regulation on Sunday trading, but she then says that it is difficult to enforce regulation in any case. We should at least be honest in this debate. Is it her true position that, even if the regulations were quite straightforward to enforce, she would not want them enforced because she believes in total deregulation? Is she merely using that idea to buttress her argument without believing in it at all?

Dame Angela Rumbold: That distorts what I said and, if I may say so, it is a rather disgraceful remark. I have made it absolutely plain that if the House favours one of the most restrictive options, I should be one of the first to ask that there should be solid and strict enforcement of it through the local authorities. I very much resent the implication that I was asking the House to break the law —I most certainly am not.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to the issue of costs to local authorities, if there is to be deregulation, and if the market giants take over not only their own share but everyone else's, surely there will be a denuding not only of the small corner shop but of town centres. That would have a deleterious knock-on effect on local authorities, not least in terms of what they can raise in rates. It has already happened in parts of central London. There is a concomitant to turning central shopping areas in the inner cities into deserts: they also become crime ridden, which has further enormous knock-on effects.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I do not agree with her. There has not been a massive restriction on small shops as a result of what has happened in the past three to four years. Part of the reason for town centres being denuded is not Sunday trading but planning legislation which has encouraged the large stores to move out of town. The notion of encouraging large stores to move out of town is as much a cause of small shops having problems in town centres as is pedestrianisation, which is a monstrous idea.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Like me, the right hon. Lady is a patron of the National Organisation of Asian Businesses. Earlier this year, she co-sponsored with me a reception in the Members' Dining Room, which was attended by the Prime Minister. She made a speech supporting the Asian business community. In relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said, a sizeable proportion of inner-city shops are owned by members of the Asian community. Has the right hon. Lady considered the effect of her proposals on Asian small shopkeepers? Can she continue as a patron of that organisation, knowing that her solution would devastate many small Asian businesses?

Dame Angela Rumbold: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If I did, it would clearly be very difficult for me to sustain my patronage of that organisation. Asian business men have prospered and many have opened shops recently. They are doing extremely well, and nothing in my proposal would damage their prospects.
I am aware that many hon. Members want to participate in the debate and that it is unfair for one speaker to take up too much time, so I will quickly move on.
It is important that someone mentions the issue of employment on behalf of those people who wish to work on a Sunday. Currently, some 140,000 people work in shops on Sundays, about a third of whom work only on Sundays and not during the rest of the week. They are, in the main, women. They choose to work on a Sunday because it is the one day on which they can leave their children and families safely with their partner. In that way they contribute to the finances of the family and are able to buy little luxuries—or simply contribute towards a decent standard of living. I do not see that it is any part of my job as a legislator to prevent them from taking such jobs.
Under the more restrictive option, a number of those women would be deprived of the opportunity to work on a Sunday. Hon. Members should think carefully about that as a substantial number of women and families will not thank them if they do not consider that issue before voting today.

Mr. Lord: As an ex-Home Office Minister, has my right hon. Friend seen the report by a firm called London Economics, commissioned by the Home Office and published in April this year, which shows that not just part-time employment but the whole jobs scene would lose 20,000 jobs if we had total deregulation?

Dame Angela Rumbold: If we go for a very restrictive option, we shall lose considerably more than 20,000 jobs. That might not make a difference to those who do not wish to see or understand the difficulties that some women have. Those women are working to keep their families together and to ensure that their children have the same things as other children in school, but they can do so only on a Saturday or a Sunday. It is my duty to bring that issue before the House.
We have entirely ignored the views of the shoppers. We shall not be able to explain to those people who currently shop on a Sunday why in future some garden centres will be unable to open on a Sunday, and why those that are open will be able to sell only certain goods. It will not be easy to explain to the people who come into our advice bureaux why some do-it-yourself stores that have been selling goods for a long time will have to close, or why, if they are open, they will not be able to sell certain products on a Sunday. I can imagine the kind of complaints that this will bring in our postbags, and the irritation that it will cause.
Those are some of the points that I ask my hon. Friends and also the Opposition to consider before casting their votes today. It is extremely important to remember that a number of people have approached us, written to us and put to us all the points raised this afternoon and this evening. We have to weigh up those judgments and make a decision on behalf of our constituents. It is a burdensome but very important decision that we as individuals must make. We must choose with extreme care, not believing only those people who have written to us but judging for ourselves what our other constituents will say.

Sir Peter Emery: I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said. There is great strength in her argument and I understand it. If she does not succed in her argument, will she not throw her strength behind my amendment?

Dame Angela Rumbold: I have listened to my right hon. Friend's argument with great interest and weighed it


up very carefully, as I will the arguments of other hon. Members. My right hon. Friend knows that I am hoping that my proposal for total deregulation will win the day.

Mr. Ray Powell: Let me follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) with a few remarks concerning her activities on the contentious issue of Sunday trading.
The right hon. Lady served on the Committee that considered a Bill that I promoted earlier this year, and she tabled some 122 amendments. She participated in a debate on Friday 14 May, and on that occasion she tabled a further 99 amendments. Having been afforded every opportunity in Committee to make whatever amendments she wanted, she tabled 99 amendments and 13 new clauses.
I was fortunate that my Bill was the third Bill drawn out in the ballot immediately after the election. In a free vote on a Friday, the Bill had a majority of 214 and went to Committee. The right hon. lady made a special request to serve on the Committee and, because of her activities and her interest—and because I thought that she had learnt a lot in the Home Office as the Minister responsible for shops —I thought that she would make a good contribution to the debate in Committee, and I agreed that she should be appointed.

Dame Angela Rumbold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: I have not reached the point yet.
Every hon. Member is responsible for his own actions. If I had served for four years in the Home Office as a Minister with responsibility for shops, and if during that time I had not lifted a finger to try to introduce legislation to alter the Shops Act 1950, I would not have the gall to come to the House and spend 25 minutes criticising the suggestions of the Shopping Hours Reform Council—or even criticising the Keep Sunday Special or the Retailers for Shops Act Reform options. It is galling that the right hon. Lady should do that having not introduced, or made any attempt to introduce, any legislation while she was at the Home Office.
Before the right hon. Lady intervenes, I would like her to explain the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made about a letter that was sent to me. I do not know how it arrived in my mail, but it did. We should be accurate in any correspondence that we circulate to other hon. Members. If, as the right hon. Lady suggests, she is going to have an advice centre in the Lobby tonight, will she make sure that the advice she gives is correct? In the letter she asks hon. Members whether they are going to participate in the vote on Wednesday, and concludes by saying in the last paragraph:
Please be in the House on Thursday.
We have a responsibility to ensure that when we circulate letters to hon. Members on an issue such as Sunday trading our advice is correct, so that when hon. Members go into the Lobby we retain some credibility for knowing how we will direct them in the vote.
I have a mischievous mind. Will the right hon. Lady tell me whether she has been asked by the Government to do a whipping job in the Lobby tonight because of her experience as a Minister in the Home Office and her role

in the Conservative party as a chairman? It is a free vote, and no Whips are supposed to be employed in the Lobby tonight.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; it is most kind of him. I was a little surprised to learn that it was the hon. Gentleman who had appointed me to sit on the Committee dealing with his private Member's Bill. I had suspected that the Selection Committee was responsible, but I may be entirely wrong.
A number of the amendments that were tabled at that time were either accepted before the time came to discuss them, or accepted with slight alterations. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case?

6 pm

Mr. Powell: I serve on the Selection Committee, but I also promoted the Bill. Because of the majority that the Bill received in the House on the Friday when it was first debated, only four hon. Members who were opposed to it were allowed on to the Standing Committee. I received a number of requests from hon. Members who opposed the Bill: indeed, one Conservative Member—he is now sitting only three seats away from the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden—complained bitterly about his exclusion. Having explained that, I should like to hear an explanation in regard to the letter, which was plainly circulated with the primary aim of confusing people.
I myself have no wish to confuse the Committee further, but I hope that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) will explain why amendment No. 35 arrived on the agenda in his name at such a late stage. If he had arranged to be paired tonight, he would be in Russia. It is passing strange, as Enoch Powell would say, that an amendment should be tabled on the eve of a debate to ensure that everyone is confused about the voting.
All the groups involved have circulated letters among their supporters, suggesting that they vote for one of the three options. Overnight, however—no doubt following advice from the learned Clerks—a new amendment has been conjured up. The night before last, no one had seen it. Did the Government promote that amendment in order to confuse the issue even further? Organisations such as Keep Sunday Special and RSAR decided to present a combined option to help the Committee to make its decision respectfully and properly. That limited the number of options to three.

Sir Peter Emery: I strongly object to the hon. Gentleman's implication. First, he is incorrect: the amendment was tabled, in my name, the moment after Second Reading. It was not a new amendment. If the hon. Gentleman had been present when I began my speech, he would have heard me say that. I explained then why amendment No. 1 had become amendment No. 35: it was tabled before the Government had tabled their amendment to alter the way in which the Bill would operate. Following the alteration brought about by the Government's amendments, I had to redraft my own amendment.
I thoroughly object to the suggestion that I should have been elsewhere. I am meant to be leading a delegation to the Parliament of the Confederation of Independent States in Gorky at this very moment, observing the Russian elections, but I felt that my duties to the House came first. I shall leave on the first plane tomorrow, but now I am here to do what I believe is right—not sponsored by the


Government, or by anyone but myself. My constituents know my views, and could tell the hon. Gentleman that I have held them for many years. Perhaps he will withdraw his implication.

Mr. Powell: I made no allegations. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I might not have been present for his speech, but I have been present since the beginning of the debate: if anyone should withdraw an allegation, it is the right hon. Gentleman. I know that I am short, and on occasion it may be necessary for me to stand on my seat to catch the Speaker's eye; however, I am not so short that Conservative Members sitting below the Gangway cannot see me when I am in the Chamber.
As other hon. Members have spoken for as long as 35 minutes, I had better proceed with my speech. Undoubtedly, most hon. Members are now suffering from "Sunday trading fatigue", and we hope that after tonight's vote the deluge of mail from a wide range of interest groups will cease. I believe, however, that no hon. Member should be in any doubt about the issues involved, and it behoves me to spell them out. They are embodied on page 9 of the Government's document on Sunday trading, which explains the Keep Sunday Special campaign option. The campaign agrees that the Shops Act 1950 is out of date and contains too many anomalies, arguing that
there is a strong case in favour of an improved regulatory scheme. There are at least three arguments which point towards limiting shops opening on Sundays".
The first is
To guarantee a common day off for the family and community activities, including church worship.
The second is
To ensure rhythm in people's lives, balancing work and recreation.
The third is
To protect vulnerable sections of the retail workforce and those employed in ancillary services from pressure to work unusual hours.
As we all know, those are the arrangements advocated by Keep Sunday Special under the REST—"recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel"—proposals, and they appeared in my Bill in the spring.
I am proud of the arduous and industrious campaign that Keep Sunday Special has waged throughout the year, after waiting since 1986 to promote a reasonable and effective measure in place of the 1950 Act. I am also proud of my loyal and trustworthy friends in the organisation, who helped me tremendously in my endeavours to promote my Bill. I am grateful for the support of the many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who served so well on the Standing Committee. Despite certain pressures from many quarters, they have remained convinced of their cause, and have continued to advocate their principles relentlessly. They did so not for profit, personal gain or exploitation but out of sheer and sincere conviction and neighbourliness. With the help of thousands outside the House and of many in the House, and with the help of prayers from religious organisations, I feel confident that the Keep Sunday Special-RSAR option will be rewarded tonight with a tremendous victory.
The main argument against seven-day trading is that the additional costs of servicing the community at the existing level would increase the price of goods to the public, which would be inflationary. Also, increased police, health and safety inspectorate and transport cover would make additional demands on Government expenditure. What causes most dismay and alarm, however, is the devastating,

octopus-like, outreaching effect that seven-day trading would have on crime and the enormously increased cost of that to the community.
Law and order become effective when individuals act responsibly and with integrity, and are not dominated by self-interest and expediency. Promoting those qualities is one of the tasks of the churches. While many question the effectiveness of the chuches, it would be fatal to underestimate the value of their work—which is inseparable from law and order. While the former is a seven-day operation, on Sunday special emphasis is placed on promoting ideals. Making Sunday just another day would greatly hamper the effectiveness of the churches' work.
Any of the deregulation options would have that effect, because in most large cities—and this touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)—85 per cent. of retail businesses are owned and run by Asians. Twenty-five per cent. of their profits come from Sunday turnover. They work long hours and provide a valuable service to the community. If total deregulation or the SHRC option is implemented, the majority of Asian shop owners will be forced out of business, with disastrous social consequences for themselves and for their customers. The elderly, infirm, those without transport, and those without the money to bulk-buy weekly would be disadvantaged. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that this is a battle for their survival.
Small stores are already under pressure from the recession, fluctuating interest rates, and competition from superstores and hypermarkets. In the past 30 years, the number of small, neighbourhood stores has fallen from 145,000 in 1950 to 36,000 today. If total or partial deregulation were to occur, corner stores all over Britain would disappear and vandalism would raise its ugly head, bringing increased crime. Our inner cities would resemble the downtown areas of Los Angeles, New York and Chicago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is a worrying prospect.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My constituency has several small stores in a thriving inner city. I believe that it is the fourth most profitable shopping centre in Britain. However, small companies are experiencing difficulties. One business man contacted me recently to say that his three small butcher shops in the city lost 20 per cent. of their business after large stores started opening illegally two years ago. He fears that, unless Parliament enacts legislation to protect small firms, he will have to close his business.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend's constituency contains the largest number of shops of any constituency in the whole of Wales. He knows from his connections with the Co-operative movement of the problems faced by small grocers who provide a community service. If we are not careful about how we vote tonight, they will be lost.

Mr. Sheerman: There were a couple of gasps when my hon. Friend cited American examples. As I have recent experience of the situation in the United States, I can tell the Committee that 800 towns and cities there have a gang warfare structure. American experts say that the power of big, efficient retailing has wiped out inner-city retailers and brought crime to those districts. That is already happening


in my constituency. A Sainsbury store opened there only one year ago and already 18 charity shops and the market are struggling. My hon. Friend's point about America was absolutely correct.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I do not address this remark only to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), but if there are any more interventions of that length, many hon. Members who hope to catch the eye of the Chair will not be successful.

Mr. Powell: I appreciate that my hon. Friend made a lengthy intervention, but it was important to the debate. Senators from all over America on visits to the House have told me, "Whatever you do, keep Sunday special. We have lost it in America, and would love to return to the days when we could enjoy the tranquillity of Sunday."

Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is much more church-going in the United States than in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Powell: We have suffered a crime-ridden society since 1979, but there is much more crime in America than in this country.
Once Sunday shopping is deregulated to any extent, it will be irreversible and the damage will have been done. Small shops and stores will close for ever, and we shall become used to Sunday being just another day. Family life will suffer, supermarkets will increase their domination of the food trade, workers will have even more fragmented leisure time and a Sunday off will be only a memory for retail workers.
I am convinced that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are not prepared to let the Government or anyone else kill off our tranquil Sunday with total deregulation. I am equally confident that the Committee will oppose deregulators whose goal is to reward those firms that have blatantly and relentlessly broken the law to achieve a monopoly of the retail trade on not only Sundays but all 365 days of the year. The Shopping Hours Reform Council option is not a compromise; it is the wolf of deregulation in a cynical sheep's clothing.
I received a letter from Unison, which now has 1·25 million members. I understand that the letter has been circulated to all hon. Members. It refers to a contentious issue that has yet to be resolved—the question of employment protection. I realise that we will have a debate shortly on the whole issue of employment protection. However, the issue is of grave concern to those who want to make decisions tonight. Some hon. Members must go into one Lobby or another not knowing whether they will do so because they support a principle argument that I have explained to the Committee or on the basis of whether people who will be employed on a Sunday will have certain protection.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for reading an excerpt from the letter from the general secretary of Unison, Alan Jinkinson, which was sent to us on 6 December. I quote:
there is confusion surrounding the proposals in the Sunday Trading Bill and in particular the issue of employment protection … the Bill now contains a measure of 'protection' for current and future shop workers in terms of non compulsory working on

Sundays. However, our legal advice is that the provisions in the Bill will be more or less unworkable and ineffective. The clauses on employees being able to opt in or out of Sunday working are complicated and are likely to cause serious confusion. More importantly, unscrupulous employers will be able to exploit the weaknesses in the legislation and use a range of excuses to get around the rights of individuals not to work on Sunday. The Government's proposals for employment protection in the Bill are therefore illusory. The Bill also does not contain any provision concerning double time payments for Sunday working. Premium payments are an important compensation for those who have to work on Sundays and the neglect of any reference to payment in the Bill is an important omission.
I read that part of the letter because there might be some confusion regarding my association with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers as one of its sponsored Members, and because of its recent decision to support not Keep Sunday Special but some other organisation. Let me make it abundantly clear that the executive council of USDAW took the decision, not the collective membership. Having explained that, I must emphasise that USDAW still supports employment protection and double time for all workers on a Sunday.
Earlier this year, employment protection was included in my Bill, together with the request for double-time payments. I am glad that the Committee which dealt with my Bill agreed in principle to employment protection and double-time payments being embodied in my Bill.

Ms Joan Ruddock: I ask my hon. Friend to acknowledge that an amendment relating to double-time payments has been tabled. The weaknesses in the employment protection scheme that exists in Britain as a whole, to which my hon. Friend alluded, were known to hon. Members and, indeed, were known to him at the time that he drafted the employment protection provisions for his private Member's Bill. Does he acknowledge that, on the face of the Bill, employment protection—whether it is weak or strong, or however one might define it—will apply to all the options in the Bill? It is clear that if there are weaknesses, they apply equally to all the options.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend makes a good contribution. Mr. Lofthouse, I hope that you are watching the clock and will give me injury time because of the length of interventions.
On Second Reading, I referred to an employee of Woolworths who was told that, if he was not prepared to sign an agreement to work on a Sunday, obviously he would lose his job. The personnel director of Woolworths Mr. Leo McKee, sent me a haughty letter saying:
the Terms and Conditions you cited would seem to refer to a booklet that was withdrawn by Woolworths over a year ago and is now obsolete".
I have not yet replied to the letter, which is dated 3 December. If some hon. Members have a copy of the letter, I can assure them that the document to which I was referring was a contract compiled by Woolworths which the worker was asked to sign by a date in late November. It was not a booklet of terms and conditions; it was a contract that the man was asked to sign.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) raised the question of employment contracts. If we have total deregulation or partial deregulation without ensuring that we have real employment protection and double time for workers, we will be selling poorly paid workers in the retail industry throughout the country down the river.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the more shops are open on Sunday, the less opportunity there will be for workers who do not want to work on Sunday to seek jobs in other companies and therefore the more pressure there will be on them?

Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend. I wish her sincere best wishes in her quest to become the president of USDAW once again. I hope that the members of USDAW will support her in that quest.
I am grateful that the Chair afforded me an opportunity to speak last week and has done so again this week. I am aware of the pressure to call as many hon. Members as possible in such an emotive debate. Therefore, I shall conclude my remarks by appealing to hon. Members once again.

Mr. Bill Etherington: As my hon. Friend concludes his short speech on this issue, perhaps he would like to comment on what happened when betting shops were deregulated with regard to employment protection in that sector.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Lofthouse, I am sure that if my hon. Friend catches your eye, you will give him an opportunity to raise that matter. But I see that you are checking the clock.
I appeal to all hon. Members once again: let our communities, our children and our grandchildren enjoy what we have been fortunate to enjoy—the tranquillity and comfort of one day in the week that is special. Let us treasure our Sunday for as long as we can. I ask hon. Members to vote for the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR proposals tonight.

Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) concluded his speech with some important references, and he drew the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), the Front Bench spokesman on that issue, in connection with employment protection. I should just remind the House of what Anthony Scrivener QC said in his opinion, commissioned by the John Lewis Partnership in this connection, in relation to the amendments which the Government have brought forward on employment protection:
There is no problem in dealing with a situation where an employee is openly dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays but that is not how it is likely to happen. That reason will not be stated openly and an employee will know that various excuses can be given for dismissal which may not be the real one. The appreciation of this fact alone puts the employee at risk to pressure and there is nothing that can be done by way of wording which can remove this apprehension.
Nothing that can be done by way of wording? There is something which can be done to support and protect the employee, and that is to make and to keep Sunday special.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend know that there are already contracts circulating? I have one in my hands now, which says:
If it is decided that your branch will trade on a Sunday or a bank holiday you may be asked to work on these days. Your employment is subject to your full agreement on this condition…
That is a firm called Contessa in Wolverhampton. It is similar to the Smith's contract. Such contracts are being circulated all over the country.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting me. I make the point, which I believe is relevant and of significance to us all, whichever side of the argument we are on already, that there will be no serious employment protection in the future other than by keeping Sunday special and having a regulatory framework of shopowners.

Mr. James Paice: rose—

Mr. Alison: I have noted that the First Deputy Chairman wants us to make shorter speeches. I will give way to my hon. Friend a little later, but I want to make progress. I want to strike a note of harmony with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold)—

Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
I fear possibly drawing or crossing swords with my very real right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). My right hon. Friend is distinguished by being a colleague of courage and of discretion. One has to have both courage and discretion to be Chairman of our parliamentary Procedure Committee. I fear that on this occasion, in bringing forward another option for Sunday reform, my right hon. Friend has shown that he is exceedingly courageous but a little less prominent in discretion because he has managed somehow, by introducing What he calls a simple solution, to introduce a final solution. He has produced a final solution which effectively buries in the same grave the sponsors of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and those who support Keep Sunday Special.
Let me illustrate that by drawing attention to what happens to DIYs, the great vogue theme in all Sunday opening. This is what happens to DIYs under the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. Everyone knows that one needs to have DIYs open on Sunday mornings because if one is going to do any DIY one does it after one has been to the shop and bought the goods. DIY is something that one does in the afternoon. Miraculously, my right hon. Friend, courageous but lacking in discretion, has brought forward a proposal for DIY that manages to close them in the morning, which is exactly when we want them open.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Alison: I will just complete this. Even more miraculously, at the same time, not only did he manage to frustrate the shopowners by making certain that DIY stores are shut in the morning, but he then managed to totally frustrate the owners of DIY stores by letting them open only in the afternoon. There is no business for them in the afternoon. They have lost all the trade. They do not want to open on half a day. My right hon. Friend has miraculously, therefore, outraged those people who want to use DIY shops and those who want to sell goods to the consumers of DIYs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and I would unite and say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has got it precisely wrong. The theme of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is a good one; it is to try


to keep Sunday special. When he is convinced that his option is not acceptable from either side of the great debate, I hope that he will at least vote for the Keep Sunday Special option.

Sir Peter Emery: It is always possible for people to make errors and it would be quite possible in Committee for the DIYs to be added. If that is done, will my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) support my amendment? If that is the only thing wrong with it, I am delighted to give way to him.

Mr. Alison: I would recommend that, as my right hon. Friend is so keen to modify and improve options in Committee, he takes a ride on the Keep Sunday Special slogan, where he will find plenty of opportunities in Committee to introduce a variation on his own special theme, namely, that DIY shops should shut in the afternoon but open in the morning. We can then have a debate on a total Honiton reverse option, which is best done when we come to consider in Committee upstairs the Keep Sunday Special procedures because I think that my hon. and right hon. Friends and colleagues in all parts of the Committee are now getting a bellyful of the various options before us.
I shall summarise the Keep Sunday Special approach by saying that I believe that it is a positive Sunday shop-opening framework; it is not a Sunday shop-closing framework. I emphasise that it does something helpful for shoppers and at the same time it does something helpful for Sunday.

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. Alison: I will give way to my hon. Friend if I can get on a little bit. My hon. Friend, incidentally, has a bee in his bonnet about antique shops. Antiques, under the Keep Sunday Special proposals, will be saleable—antiques will be saleable in DIYs. [Interruption.] My right hon. and hon. Friends mentioned that they had not studied the scope. I am glad to have the opportunity to make the point.

Mr. Douglas French: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison: Let me complete what I am trying to say on the subject.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and other honourable colleagues have not appreciated the flexibility of the framework in the Keep Sunday Special proposals, which uses the phrase "wholly or mainly". If the smaller kind of DIY shops choose, because they think that there is a market for antiques, one will be able to buy antiques in a DIY shop. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Alison: Hon. Members do not appreciate the extent to which there is genuine flexibility in the Keep Sunday Special proposals.

Mr. Paice: Is it not the case that the REST proposals, on which the KSS-RSAR proposals are founded, have been around for four or five years? They have been through the course with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). Is it not a bit late to start talking about amending the proposal in Committee and changing this and changing that? Surely by now it should have been

perfect. Has not the proposal gone so far from keeping Sunday special that it has lost any intellectual integrity and is a complete and utter mishmash?

Mr. Alison: As my hon. Friend would expect, I totally disagree with his analysis. Since the original Bill that was introduced by my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher was thrown out, it has been possible to bring those proposals forward only through the vehicle of private Members' legislation. We know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden suddenly found it desirable to introduce 99 amendments the last time that we had an attempt to legislate in private Members' time. So the integrity has not yet been properly tested. It is about to be tested tonight, and I am convinced that the general view of thè Committee will overwhelmingly favour the framework of law that gives great scope for opening shops, but still reflects the fact that most people want to keep Sunday as a special day. Under the Keep Sunday Special proposals, there will be more opening of shops than is permitted now, and a wider range of goods than is now available will be sold. But at least there will be some sort of regulatory framework to protect home, family, leisure and the general pattern of life that we know.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I have been especially troubled by one aspect of the Keep Sunday Special proposals—the fact that they allow the four Sundays before Christmas to be totally deregulated. That does not seem consistent with the rest of the group's views. Moreover, the very people whom it claims to protect—small shopkeepers —are to be deprived of the best four weeks of trading, because there will be a free-for-all on the four Sundays before Christmas. Will my right hon. Friend explain the logic of that?

Mr. Alison: That is easy to explain. We are trying to establish a reasonable balance for life on Sunday. If we allow four Sunday openings out of the total number of Sundays in the year, there will be 48 Sundays left, on which there will not be a free-for-all. In all conscience, is that not a reasonable balance?

Dr. Spink: rose—

Mr. Alison: No, I must get on. It is not fair to other hon. Members if I give way too much.
Everyone has his own favourite poll on the options before us, and there is one poll that I believe conveys the real flavour of the attitude of the great mass of the British public in the world outside this rather hyped-up—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The English public.

Mr. Alison: The English public, then.
For the Harris Research Centre survey of 1989 respondents were asked to list the five most popular things to do on a Sunday—[Laughter.] I know from long parliamentary experience that if one talks of asking people to list the five most popular things to do on a Sunday—[HON. MEMBERS: "DIY."]—one must immediately continue, without leaving a gap for hon. Members to fill. Let me tell hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who I know will sympathise, the list of what people prefer to do on Sundays—[Laughter.] These are serious matters.
Number 1 on the list was:


Spending time with husband/wife and children (21 per cent.)
Number 2 was:
Having a quiet day at home with the papers or television (15 per cent.)
Number 3 was:
Visiting friends or relatives or having them visit (12 per cent.)
Number 4 was:
Having a day out visiting the seaside/country or historical town (11 per cent.)
Number 5 was:
Going to a Church service (8 per cent.)
The idea that the Keep Sunday Special proposals are being swept along by Church-oriented pressure groups is nonsense.
The activities that I have mentioned are what people like to do on Sunday. Shopping came 11th. Only 1 per cent. of respondents listed it as the thing that they would most like to do on a Sunday.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that poll was taken before supermarkets opened on Sundays? Does he also accept that many more people shop in supermarkets on Sundays than go to church?

Mr. Alison: That is a highly unlikely statistic, which I do not believe could be proved. Ten per cent. of the population goes to church on Sunday, and I doubt whether they could all be crowded into the supermarkets that open on a Sunday.
To help my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) get his riposte in perspective, I shall tell him about a slightly more up-to-date poll, which came from NOP in September 1990 and is cited by the John Lewis Partnership in its broadsheet. The question asked in that poll was singularly straightforward and unweighted:
Are you inconvenienced by most shops being closed on Sunday?
People were asked to say whether they were inconvenienced "a lot", "a fair amount", "a little", or "not at all". Only 5 per cent. said that they were inconvenienced a lot, and only 8 per cent. that they were inconvenienced a fair amount; 22 per cent. said that they would be inconvenienced a little, and 64 per cent. said that they would not be inconvenienced at all; 1 per cent. said, "Don't know".
The argument that there is a huge amount—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Alison: No, I am sorry to say that my hon. and learned Friend has given away his identity by the way that he is dressed this afternoon, and this is not a Scottish Bill, so I shall not give way to him.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Alison: I am afraid that I must get on. My hon. Friend will understand that allowing too many interventions is not fair to others who wish to speak.
To say that there are hungry shoppers frustrated almost to the point of suicide because they cannot get into shops all over the place on Sunday is a ludicrous misrepresentation of what is happening in the outside world. The idea is irrelevant and untrue. The great mass of the public is not seriously inconvenienced at all by a restrictive shopping regime.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison: No, I am afraid that I must get on.
What I say is expecially true in the light of the positive options offered by the Keep Sunday Special procedures. There may be restricted shop opening, but there will be a rational framework for shops, based on the principles of REST—recreation, emergencies, social facilities and amenities, and transport. The whole range of shops offering such services will be open and able to trade.
We must think about the down side, and the problems that will arise if there is total deregulation, with no regulatory framework. Mr. David Sieff of Marks and Spencer put the case vividly in the Evening Standard last night:
Sunday trading does not make the retail cake bigger.
Instead it involves spreading the profits of six days' trading over seven days' costs. Prices would have to increase, premium rates of pay on Sundays would have to be dropped, and large shops would tend to increase their market share at the expense of smaller convenient village shops. Exactly what David Sieff forecast—and itemised in his article—would happen. for example, as he wrote:
Already, nearly 2,000 small stores have gone out of business in the past two years since the large supermarkets began regular Sunday trading.
That is a significant number.
Another way of describing our proposal is to call it the KSSC option—the "keep small shops competitive" option. On the other hand, the Shopping Hours Reform Council option could be described as the SHRC option—the "superstores hoping to rake in cash" option. That is the reality that we are debating. KSSC proposes that a flexible and increasing range of shops would be able to open on Sundays, whereas the Shopping Hours Reform Council would sweep regulations away and bring about a massive free-for-all.
Sunday opening would not be restricted to shops. It would extend to banks, building societies and estate agents. If Sunday is to be like any other day, why should not everybody open on Sunday? All those who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, cannot shop on Sundays will not be able to shop on Sundays because they will be forced to work in their own premises.
I resisted giving way because you asked for short speeches, Mr. Lofthouse. I apologise for speaking as long as I have. I hope that hon. Members and right hon. Members will keep Sunday special.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Chairman, Mr. Lofthouse, for announcing at the beginning of the debate that my amendment No. 21, with its consequential amendments, would be selected for a vote.
I wish to address the Committee on the basis of two principal points. The first is the amendment as a fall-back, and we may need a fall-back position, and the second is in its context as one of the earlier votes. There will be a series of votes later, as the Committee knows. There is the total deregulation option, the Keep Sunday Special option with little deregulation plus the four Sundays, and there is the six hours between 10 am and 6 pm option.
I argue that if all of those are defeated we shall be left either with the law as it is—that is clearly a nonsense, and few people voted against Second Reading—or something that would bring into effect the option to decide at a local


level. I beg the Committee's indulgence to consider whether that might not be, for many people, the second best option available. There is strong evidence for that.
Logically, it would have been better to have a vote on the local option first, but procedurally that is not possible. I would ask the Committee to accept that also.
I will first state my preferred position, so that there can be no dissembling about it. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading and I believe that the present law is a nonsense which needs to be reformed urgently.
I also think that the law-breaking that has happened is indefensible. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), who was a Minister, and also the Attorney-General and others who were in office when shops started opening on Sunday did not make it clear enough that what was going on was unacceptable. Had the Government called in the managing directors and the chairmen and chairwomen of the boards and formally made it clear that it was unacceptable, there might have been far less Sunday opening of big stores.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I must continue. We may have only until 10 o'clock for the debate.
I will declare all my interests. I share many of them with most of my colleagues, but one or two may be unusual and it seems reasonable to put all of them on the record.
Like all hon. Members, I represent many small shops, market stalls, markets and big shops. Sadly, like many hon. Members, I also represent many unemployed people who want to work. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in Britain. Like many hon. Members, I represent shoppers and employees. I also represent large, good, clean, efficient and pleasant stores. Those stores include the Tesco store which opened two or three yars ago at Surrey Quays—a store which is currently opening illegally on Sundays. Tesco did me the courtesy of asking me to meet the employees of that store last Sunday to hear their views. Lastly, the registered headquarters office of J. Sainsbury plc is also in my constituency.
No option will please all of the people all of the time —that is self-evident. We must do what is for the best, not just in the short term but in the long term.
I am for keeping Sunday special. It is important to me as a Christian, but I can arrange to keep my Sunday special without the law. It is not on that basis which I argue the point. I do not claim special protection for my faith, nor for the faiths of others. Much more importantly, I believe that it is in the interests of our society as a whole—for people of all faiths and people of no faith—that we have a common context for our work and for our leisure. That context should have an order to it and it should respect the pattern of work and leisure. It should build in a guarantee that, on one day at least, there is a presumption in favour of something other than work.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will not, for the reason which I gave earlier. I do not want to use up too much time.

I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who argued for the deregulation option. The right hon. Lady has been a Home Office Minister.
One cannot reasonably argue that deregulation is good in principle—or else one would argue that deregulation is good for health and safety at work, for pubs which could open at any time day or night, or for speed limits. That is an invalid argument. One cannot say that one person's freedom to choose does not have an impact on other people's freedoms. That is a dangerous argument which the right hon. Lady made. One cannot argue for regulation to be left to local authorities and yet argue that they cannot do the enforcing, which is one of the difficulties of the present law.
The Minister argued that we live in a market economy. In a market economy, the big fish eat the little fish, and the little fish increasingly are no longer there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily."] Not necessarily may be correct, but the big fish have the power and the capacity more often to eat the little fish. Lastly, one cannot say that deregulation is necessary for women in particular, or workers in general, to have Sunday work in order to get a better deal. I would say to Tesco and Sainsbury's that if they are so concerned about workers' rights, they should pay the workers double time on a Saturday. They could certainly do that, and there is no need to get them in on Sunday to give them double time.
What would more Sunday trading mean? It would mean more transport on our roads. It would mean that there would be a greater incentive to spread the business of six days over seven, and that is what is happening. There would be a greater incentive to work every day and there would be greater pressure on people not to have a day of rest at all. More people are doing so, including hon. Members it may be said. Many people wish that they did have more spare time, but they cannot now find a way to do so. There would be a greater incentive to spend money on seven days—money which some, regrettably, may not have. There would be a greater incentive to advertise more and to appeal to people's commercial interests. There would be greater pressure both on and from children and young people. There would be more pressure for more people. Simply, there would just be more pressure.
It is important that we listen to the voices of leaders from all faiths—Christian, Jewish and others—who share the views of a letter to The Times which was headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and which was printed on the day of the Second Reading. The letter said:
Commercial pressures already loom large enough in our society. Sunday affords space for the nurture of other values, pursuits and dimensions of family life in a more restful atmosphere. On the grounds of not only religious conviction but also pastoral experience, we believe that the spiritual, psychological and physical health of our nation would be poorer if there were no longer one common day in the week which was substantially different from the rest.
I say amen to that.
What has been the experience in Scotland under a different regime? I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who speaks for my party on Scottish affairs, before the debate. He told me that the number of people who shop on Sunday has gone up. What happened in Scotland will happen here. When I was at my local Tesco last Sunday listening to the views of Sunday shoppers, some of them said that they liked shopping there on Sunday because it was quiet. It is not so


quiet as it was when it first opened on Sundays two years ago. In five or ten years' time, Sunday will be much more like a Saturday, a Friday, a Thursday or a Wednesday. I gather that that is the general experience in Scotland, too.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way, but only because time is limited. The reality is that the amount of shopping might be little today, but once the door is open there is no turning back.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Rubbish!

Mr. Hughes: It is not rubbish, and I will give the reason for that in a moment. The local authority option—the fall-back position—at least allows a turning back, because local authorities will be able to change their minds. If we vote for the Honiton option, or if we vote for six hours now, then we will be asked later to vote for longer.
Of course it would be convenient for all if shops were open on a Sunday. It would be convenient if they were open when we finish here at 2 a.m.—indeed, some of them are. If the shops were open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it would be convenient for some people and there would be people in the shops. Especially in urban areas and city centres, that would be convenient for at least some people. Convenience is not the most important argument, however, and I hope that we shall resist it.
I am convinced that, whatever the best practices and best intentions of the best managers may be, given the choice between employing someone who says that he or she will never work on a Sunday and someone else who says that he or she will, there will be a great deal of hidden pressure to appoint or promote the person who agrees to work. He or she will be a more valued and useful employee. Let us be honest: in this place we prefer to employ staff who are willing at least occasionally to work anti-social hours.
7 pm
Marks and Spencer and Iceland both agree with me that deregulation kills small shops. The opening of the new Tesco in Surrey docks has meant that shops in the market square in the Blue in Bermondsey have been under more pressure. Their profits have declined, some have closed, and some market stalls are struggling. That is fact, not speculation.
Deregulation will not ultimately help people who cannot get to out-of-town big shops. Such people want to go next door, but they will find when they do so that next door is no longer there.

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has a clear view in favour of deregulation which he has often presented. I, on the other hand, did not speak on Second Reading, and this is my first contribution to the debate.
I do not say that there should not be shopping on Sunday. I do not argue for an unrealistic world. The Honiton option is unrealistic; it decrees that everything shall be closed on a Sunday morning, and people will be able to buy only newspapers. That is not an acceptable option.
I am arguing against large shops and for small shops. I am arguing against more traffic, more pollution, more

consumption of fuel and more damage to the atmosphere, and I am arguing for a quieter and more pleasant existence in urban and rural Britain. Above all, I am arguing against big profits for the few and in favour of the greater number of people who need a little profit to be able to survive.
The Keep Sunday Special proposal is that on four Sundays before Christmas shops may open. That is realistic, as most people do need to shop more then—the evidence for that is clear. People shop more in December than in any other month of the year. Let us therefore respect that fact and respond to it. It is no good being strongly dogmatic and failing to take account of the real world.

Mr. David Congdon: That defeats your own argument.

Mr. Hughes: Not at all. I am arguing for the best possible conclusion compatible with people's reasonable demands. That conclusion is that we should keep Sunday special for as many weekends of the year as possible. Regardless of whether people are religious, many of them celebrate at Christmas and go shopping more in December as a result. That, too, is a fact.
I hope that we defeat the Honiton option and the total deregulation option. I hope that we will then vote in favour of the third opion—the KSS option. But that may not happen, as there may be a coalition against it. We shall then face the prospect of the six hour opening option between 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays—not many shops would open at different hours anyway. If this last option is rejected too, I ask the House to consider that it might be better to leave the decision to local councils.
I thought about whether I could propose a valid amendment for a local referendum—the precedent was set by the Welsh decision-making process on Sunday drinking —but I cannot validly propose the idea in this Bill. My local council decision option is at least better than keeping the law as it is.
There are different views in different communities. For instance, in my urban London constituency I am sure that there are stronger views in favour of Sunday opening, even though I do not believe in that, than are held in rural Herefordshire or rural Suffolk. We should respect that diversity. England and Scotland are already different—as are different areas in Switzerland, for that matter.
The enforceability question is also important in this context. Those who should decide about the local rules should be those who are legally obliged to carry out the enforcement. If they think that they cannot enforce a tight option, let them decide as much, and vice versa.
This option would also allow a change of mind. If, say, Southwark council decided to vote for six hours between 10 am and 6 pm but after five years the local community said that that was a pain—the traffic was awful, and so on —the council could change its decision. This is a way of turning the clock back. Either way, local authorities will be able to decide what is best for their areas.
Some communities are multi-faith, multi-cultural and multi-racial, others are of predominantly one faith, one culture and one ethnic background. That is the glory of Britain, and let us respect it. Local environmental issues also vary. A supermarket may be sited next to a lot of houses in one area but far from them in another.
The Sunday drinking precedent worked well in Wales, where Sunday drinking has been allowed in one district but not in another. That solution respects local views and


allows local people to participate in the process. Local communities can get involved in the debate. I am worried about legislating with one answer to meet the breadth of views being expressed in this debate. How much better it would be if the issue could be handled in a non-partisan manner by local people. I do not believe that Parliament should enforce one view on the communities of widely varying local authority areas. If a certain community wants to keep Sunday special, let it do so. If shops opening in another community will cause a nuisance to residents, let them decide.

Dame Angela Rumbold: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify how he envisages this working? I can understand how it would work in a country district, but I am confused as to how it would work in a big metropolis, where there would be far more pressure for everyone to go for one option or another. It would be difficult for local authorities to hang on to their communities under the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has fairly described my proposal as the least worst solution. What the right hon. Lady says holds true only for London, because all the other metropolitan areas are one local authority. Uniquely, London is not.
I ask colleagues what the greater good is. My answer is a cycle of work and rest, upheld by us, within which people can make as many choices as possible. As for my "least worst" option, if we cannot come to another conclusion, I suggest that the decision should be taken by local communities. We should certainly not leave them under the present nonsensical law. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is an acceptable fallback, if we need one. It is better to allow people to have their say than to perpetuate a nonsensical law.

Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. We are all aware that Sunday trading is one of the most vexed issues to come before the House in recent years. I have never known a time when a larger number of hon. Members had yet to make up their minds. I like certain parts of some proposals, but, as I will explain, none of them completely mirrors my own ideas.
The issue is made more difficult for us by the voting arrangements, because the first amendment to command a majority wins all. That means that we will never know whether another option might have commanded a bigger majority had we been able to vote on it. That puts us in an unusual procedural position.
We all agree that the existing legislation is full of anomalies. We all agree that it is a bad precedent for the law to be flouted, especially when law breaking is carried out by prestigious major companies, which should behave within the law. Sainsbury and Tesco would be quite happy to seek redress from the law if their windows were smashed. They expect the law to be respected when it defends their interests, but they are prepared to break it when their profits are at risk.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has underlined a point made in a letter from one of my constituents, who pointed out that, although the big

retailers are not prosecuted for opening illegally on Sundays, someone caught shoplifting in one of those stores most certainly would be prosecuted.

Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Lady has summed up exactly the point that I was trying to make.
I believe that Sunday should be a day for leisure and for the family. Our Good Lord said:
Six days shalt thou labour … But the seventh day is the sabbath".
I believe that the modern effect of that instruction is that we should have a day free from stress in which we can recharge our batteries and sustain family life.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir David Mitchell: I will not give way to my hon. and learned Friend because long speeches have been made and I want to make a brief one.
If one accepts the idea that Sunday is a day for leisure and for the family, it logically follows that the businesses that should be open should be those that enable people to enjoy leisure pursuits and enjoy a family day. That means almost all the businesses, apart from supermarkets, which now open normally on Sundays.
Full deregulation is said to be popular, but we need to keep its effects in mind. It is important that the House is aware that the danger is that that opinion may lead to short-term popularity and long-term damage.
The village and corner shops rely heavily on Sunday trading. We already know that many of those shops are trading at the margin. It will not take much to tip them over into loss-making concerns. Their closure would mean that a facility upon which local communities rely would be lost.
Local communities in villages or urban areas rely on the corner shop because of their convenience. They are convenient for the elderly who may have difficulty in travelling to supermarkets, especially if no bus service operates. They are convenient to the less well-off who cannot afford to travel some distance to supermarkets for their shopping. The loss of the village shop is too high a price to pay, and once it is paid it will never be possible to get that shop back.
It is also important to draw attention to the effect of Sunday trading on prices. Joe Public's spending power will not be any greater because of trading on seven days instead of six; he will simply spread his spending power over that time. Similarly, shops that decide to open for seven days will find that their costs will increase, and eventually they will be passed on to the consuming public.
The restrictive solution, which allows shops under 3,000 sq ft—a reasonable size—to trade on a Sunday, is worth considering because it would include the village shop, the corner shop, the newsagents, video shops, chemists, florists, tourist shops, farm shops, sport centre outlets, theatre and cinema shops and petrol station shops. Those shops that are not bound by any size restriction include off licences, take-aways, cafes, public houses, pharmacies, vehicle hire shops, motorway service shops, airport shops, post offices, undertakers, wine warehouses, garden centres, DIYs and motor supplies shops. They will be able to open on Sunday for the sale of leisure goods. No restrictions would be imposed on Sunday markets. On any basis, that means that a great amount of shopping could be


done on a Sunday by those who particularly wanted to do so. For that reason, I am against the concept of total deregulation.
Partial deregulation would allow supermarkets to operate for six hours. Today, those supermarkets that are breaking the law open for eight hours. Once it is legal for all to trade, the amount of available business will barely be enough to fill six hours and no supermarket will want to trade for more than that time. What we have been given in the supposedly split-the-difference solution is total deregulation to the extent that the supermarkets want to have the opportunity to trade on Sundays. The law breakers now trade for eight hours, but when everyone is allowed to trade I am sure that, given the business available, six hours would be sufficient.
7.15 pm
I believe that the KSS-RSAR amendment is a little too restrictive, but I shall vote for it because we will be able to make further changes to it in Standing Committee and on Report. We can offer a more relaxed formula for Sunday trading, which is what I would like, but if we voted for total deregulation there would be no turning back. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will vote for the more restrictive of the three options and, having done so, that it will seek to amend it as the Bill completes its further progress through the House.

Ms Janet Anderson: We all agree that the Shops Act 1950 is in desperate need of reform. It is important to reflect on exactly what has happened in recent months.
Hon. Members have made it plain that they do not condone law breaking and nor do I. I share the concern that has been expressed about the fact that the Government should have stepped in sooner to try to make it easier for local authorities to enforce the law. I hope that what has happened has made it plain to us that it is the responsibility of Parliament to pass a law now which is enforceable, workable and meets the wishes and needs of the majority.
There is no doubt that the majority of the public want shopping choice to be extended. They want to be able to shop on Sundays. If they did not want to do so, there would be no point in shops opening.
Most hon. Gentlemen may rarely be responsible for shopping for a growing family. They should understand, however, that women, and working women in particular, value the extra choice that Sunday shopping offers them. Several months ago the organisation Working Women for Sunday Shopping was established. Its co-ordinator wrote to me recently to report:
Since Working Women for Sunday Shopping was launched last month I have been inundated with letters from women questioning why legislation should dictate what they can or cannot do on Sundays. Poll after poll has shown that working women want the shops to open on Sunday. 83 per cent. of those surveyed by MORI said they would find Sunday trading convenient—69 per cent. want to see more shops open. The majority of women are now active in the workforce, very many are juggling the competing demands of home, work and family —seven day opening is a necessity for them, not a luxury.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Anderson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
One of the problems that has been apparent throughout the lengthy debate on Sunday trading is thåt those who

want to keep the shops shut have been the most vocal. For a long time they have told us that the shops must be kept shut in the name of employee protection. They said that the Government would never agree to the voluntary principle for Sunday working and that workers would be forced to work if shops were open.
Now, an albeit reluctant Government have included a guarantee of voluntary working. They have changed their tune again. Before the Minister of State beams too broadly, I must tell him that I have serious reservations about the Bill's proposals and I hope that we will be able to toughen them in Standing Committee. As he will also know, it is a priority of Opposition Members that there should be a principle of double time for Sunday working.
Those who want to close shops on Sundays say that such protection is meaningless and that there are higher principles at stake than the thousands of shop workers who will lose their Sunday work if shops shut. Shop worker unions which unanimously reject that message are simply the tools of management rather than genuinely representing their members' views.
I should like to read an extract from a letter from the deputy general secretary of USDAW to Members of Parliament. USDAW should be congratulated on listening to the views of its members. The letter says:
If you wish to follow the Shop Workers' Union position, you will need to vote as follows:—
Total deregulation (1st Vote) … No
Keep Sunday Special (2nd Vote) … No
6 HOUR OPTION (3RD VOTE) … YES
Many thousands of USDAW members are currently working on Sundays and, provided that working is entirely voluntary and they are paid at double-time rates, they wish to continue to have that opportunity.
If the KSS proposals were to go through this would deny many of our members the opportunity to work and would have a significant effect on their income. USDAW members are mainly located in the large stores and large companies and there is little organisation, if any, in small shops and the majority of them do not pay double-time and may not have even followed the Wages Council rates.

Mr. Sheerman: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but that is not what I heard. Perhaps it is a total calumny against USDAW, and I have a lot of friends in USDAW, but is it not a fact that Tesco marched the executive of USDAW in and said, "Change your mind or we will recognise another union"? That is why USDAW changed its mind; it had nothing to do with principles.

Ms Anderson: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point as it is a misconception that has been doing the rounds in recent days and weeks. I have seen the statement from the USDAW executive which categorically states that the union held a meeting with 96 of its shop stewards, 93 of whom said that their members wanted to work on Sunday.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend has just read out some correspondence addressed to Members of Parliament from the union USDAW. Let me read a short extract from a letter from USDAW sent to me on 16 December 1992 saying:
The Shopping Hours Reform Council… after all, is backed by employers who have already ridden rough shod over the current law protecting shopworkers from Sunday working and we have no confidence in them when they say they are prepared to protect shopworkers in the future.
What has changed?

Ms Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I shall tell him what has changed since that letter was written. The major retailers to whom it refers have made a statement saying that they would be happy for the voluntary principle and the entitlement to premium pay to be written into legislation. Clearly that has had some effect.
Those who want the shops shut tell us that Sunday shopping destroys family life. Yet what causes most disruption to family Sundays—an open pub or a branch of Boots? Most people do not live in 1950s-style happy families who come back from church to a Sunday roast. Many people cannot afford a Sunday roast these days. There is a huge diversity in the way people live their lives in the modern world and, although that nostalgic view may be tempting to some hon. Members, shutting shops will not bring it back.

Mr. Lord: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Home Office commissioned what I hope is an unbiased report into the effects of the various options we are considering on jobs in the retail trade? It did not concentrate on part-time or full-time jobs, but stated that, if the KSS proposal is accepted, there will be 5,000 more jobs in the retail industry. If partial deregulation is accepted, there will be 5,000 fewer jobs in the retail industry and total deregulation would mean 20,000 fewer jobs in the retail industry. Surely the hon. Lady must be concerned about that.

Ms Anderson: I am extremely concerned about jobs. That is precisely why I shall be supporting the six-hour option. We estimate 80,000 Sunday-only jobs would be lost under the more restrictive option.
We are told that the restrictive option will help small shops. They should try telling that to small shops that depend on their Sunday trade and would be forced to shut on Sunday. It will destroy the attractiveness of tourist destinations and rip the heart out of ethnic minority shopping areas which are dependent on the percentage of their groceries goods. The idea that browsing in a second-hand book shop on a Sunday afternoon is a threat to civilisation is absurd.
Some people will say that, if Members of Parliament vote for Sunday shopping, they will be giving in to commercial lobbying.

Mr. Clive Soley: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about small shops, may I ask her whether she agrees that the issue is not that there has been a decline in the number of small shops over many years? It has had nothing to do with Sunday trading but with the development of very large stores. To reverse that, we would need to close very large stores not just on Sundays but on every day of the week. There is now a different shopping pattern. Several years ago, two superstores opened in my area. There has also been a small increase in the number of small shops. The small shops are mainly Asian and not necessarily against Sunday opening. People go to the big stores for the weekly shopping and down the road to their local shops on Sunday. That is what I do.

Ms Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He is quite right.
Many people suggest that Sunday shopping will be giving in to commercial lobbying. However, there are commercial lobbies on every side of the argument. For every Tesco arguing for opening, there is an Iceland

arguing for closure. Then they say that they will allow shops that people want to open. That actually means the shops that men want to open. DIY stores and motor accessory shops will be allowed to open, although the wording of the Bill is so restrictive that real DIY shops probably will not be able to open. Any outlet selling alcohol will be allowed to open, but supermarkets and clothes shops uniquely threaten family life and therefore must shut.
I understand and accept that few want Sunday to become just another day of the week. That is why I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will reject total deregulation. However, Sunday is special because it is the day when people have most choice about what they do. Some go to church, others play sports, others visit friends and family while others simply laze about with the Sunday papers. That will not change if people are allowed to shop as one of their Sunday alternatives.
Sunday is still special in Scotland, yet shops are free to open. That is why I hope hon. Members will support the partial deregulation option. It is the only option before us tonight which reconciles the wishes of those who want to shop with those who want to work—particularly women —and at the same time make sure that Sunday will remain just a little special.

Sir George Gardiner: I shall try to speak more briefly than some earlier in the debate, to whom we listened with fascination.
A pervading theme so far in the debate has been that Sunday should be a special day. Many go further and argue, as Christians, that the law must reinforce the requirement in chapter 20 of Exodus, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell).
I understand that many church worshippers wish to obey that injunction in their weekly lives reinforcing the special nature of Sunday. I consider myself a Christian and a somewhat irregular churchgoer and regard Sunday as a day different in character from the rest, but the question that I ask myself is what moral right have I, as a Member of Parliament, to dictate to the rest of the population how they must spend their Sundays, especially as a majority of them do not wish to abide by that literal injunction of the ten commandments.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that Parliament constantly dictates to the citizens of the country on almost every subject under the sun?

Sir George Gardiner: It does, but if we can define areas where we need not do so, I do not see why we should.
Sunday is special, as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) said. It is special for different people in different ways. For some, it is special because it starts with an act of collective worship. For others, it is a day of leisure and relaxation, perhaps visiting a garden centre in the morning and planting the produce in the afternoon. For others, it means a walk or a drive in the country, perhaps stopping at a village antique shop or at a farm shop. For others, it is a day when the whole family can go and choose a suite of furniture.
7.30 pm
For many—some 5 million—sunday offers the chance to do the family shopping in a supermarket without the hassle of trying to concentrate everything into Saturday.


For some 80,000 people, including students and part-time workers, it offers the chance of earning some money, often at premium rates, using a different day of the week for leisure activity.
I therefore ask myself, if millions of citizens wish to shop on Sunday, and so many shopworkers are eager to serve them, what moral right have we to stop them? That is why I support amendment No. 1, the complete deregulation option, but which I have always called the free-choice option. I do not believe that free choice would destroy the special nature of Sunday. It has not done so in the United States, Canada, southern Ireland or Scotland.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a clash of choices and that people whose houses are disturbed on Sunday—or indeed Saturday—mornings should have a choice to have their house and premises quiet?

Sir George Gardiner: Highways legislation should cover the position of such people.
Free choice has not destroyed the special nature of Sundays in a variety of countries, including Scotland. To hear some bishops talk, one would think that Scotland was some heathen land where family cohesion has been smashed into oblivion. Scotland has had free Sunday choice for years, and Sunday shop opening there has settled to a level that meets the public demand. The same would happen here if we approved the free-choice option. Throughout large parts of England, it already has.
A further advantage of the free-choice option is that it would add almost nothing to the cost of administration that would have to be borne by local councils and ultimately by council tax payers. I shall vote for option one.
If that fails, I will most certainly oppose amendment No. 2, the Keep Sunday Special option. I cannot comprehend how the Bill's sponsors can seriously advocate replacing one set of ridiculous and unenforceable rules with another. The KSS "type of shop" approach would create many more anomalies.
As the Consumers Association has pointed out, and I shall quote a couple of extracts from its report, under the KSS option
toys or books could be bought from a newsagent, but not from a toy or bookshop; meat or bread from a small supermarket, but not from a butcher or baker. Auction houses, antique shops, clothes shops, record shops, book shops and any number of other shops will be unable to open, regardless of size, unless they are in a hospital, harbour, seaport, hoverport or airport.
On the "type of shop" approach, it continues:
A convenience shop, under 280 square metres, with a principal trade of groceries and confectionery, will be unable to open unless it also sells domestic cleaning materials. A chemist shop such as Boots, whose trade may include medical products and surgical appliances but not as its main trade, will be unable to open to sell nappies—yet a small neighbouring DIY store could. And a video shop will be able to sell or hire soft-porn movies, but a bookshop could not open to sell a bible.
Do we really want to return to such a clumsy, bureaucratic and repressive system?

Dr. Spink: I took advice this morning, and the advice is that all of these matters—the type of shop, type of goods, time of opening and the size of shops—can be dealt with by amendments in Committee upstairs. My hon. Friend should join the Committee and deal with such matters.

Sir George Gardiner: If all the objections of the Consumers Association are to be met, as my hon. Friends

have said, the Bill will require hundreds of amendments to be tabled in Committee. I cannot see how one can defend that.
Those who argue the KSS option wish to restrict working on Sundays. It would involve a vast increase in Sunday working for an army of environmental health and trading standards officers, scurrying to and fro with their measuring lines checking floor sizes and whether the shops that were opened were dealing in the exempt categories of goods listed.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Gardiner: No, I want to be brief and will not take any further interventions.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates that the KSS will cost local authorities £12 million. I must warn hon. Members that if they pass that option, they must be prepared for a flood of protest from constituents who are part of the 5 million who are now able to shop on Sundays, or from the 80,000 who will lose their jobs in consequence. Do not be surprised if those people take their revenge. If the free Sunday choice option fails, I shall support the SHRC compromise. Short of free choice, that will most closely meet the needs of my constituents.
Overall, I appeal to hon. Members: please let us treat our constituents as adults. They are quite capable of deciding how to spend their Sundays, so let us not be seen by them as agents for repression.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) has put his finger on the problem—the essence of the debate is whether we want Sunday to be special, and therefore try to promote, encourage and accept it for all sorts of good social reasons, or whether, either immediately or in a creeping way, we are prepared to erase all the differences that now exist on a Sunday. I believe that there is some value in having a day that is separate and unique and that that is proper for all the people of our country. Parliament and the public should encourage that and not have creeping deregulation. When shopping was first allowed on Good Friday, perhaps 20 per cent. of shops opened; now, 100 per cent. of the shops are open, and the tide has come completely over the difference. That will be the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He should keep his eyes open. If he wants that, so be it, but I believe that the great majority of our people do not want it.
We shall understand the four options that are now before the Committee only by understanding the context within which the debate has developed since 1976 when, based on the Auld committee report—against all the odds, as the Government had an overall majority—the Government proposal for total deregulation was defeated on Second Reading.
After that, the stores embarked on a softening-up process, in which the Government colluded. To start with, they opened only on the four Sundays before Christmas. Having tested the Government that far and realised that not only would there be no opposition but there would be connivance, they went all the way. The subject was then passed to the European Court of Justice as a delaying device, knowing the way that that court—

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because I have told him so from the Dispatch Box


before, that the Government did not take the case to the European Court. In the court, the Government argued that what the law meant was entirely a matter for this country. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I hope that he will withdraw that remark.
There has been no collusion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the law requires that the regulations be enforced by local authorities. The law must be changed before any other agency can enforce them. We are debating a change in the law now. The option that he supports—KSS—is modelled on the campaign that has been fought. It does not include a provision to allow any other agency apart from local authorities to enforce it. The hon. Gentleman is therefore speaking in favour of an option that would rely on local authorities to enforce it and it would not be for the Government directly to do so.

Mr. Anderson: I believe that the Minister is not a lawyer. He should be aware that, at any stage, the Attorney-General could have taken over by taking out injunctions against those major stores that defied the law. He must be aware that the Shops Act 1950 deals with the situation where a local authority takes action against a store. It does not deal with a conspiracy among a large number of stores collectively to break the law. The Government could have stopped that either by the Attorney-General taking out an injunction nationally against those stores or, knowing that local authorities could not risk their limited moneys in major legal actions, by being prepared to indemnify local authorities against cases that would put them at risk.
Earlier, I gave the Minister the example of the Kirklees case, which, as he knows, was considered by the House of Lords. Had Kirklees council lost that case, it would have been liable for £250,000-worth of costs. That is clearly well beyond the resources of a local authority, which could not afford to risk so much. The Government colluded by doing nothing when they might have done something. They allowed law breaking on a vast scale.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a lawyer, knows perfectly well that the role of the Attorney-General in such matters is as a Law Officer, not as a member of the Government, and my right hon. and learned Friend explained his position from the Dispatch Box. The law, as passed by Parliament, adequately allowed local authorities to enforce it and there was no proper role that would allow him to intervene.
The Kirklees case resulted in the judgment that local authorities would be responsible for the losses of stores that those authorities closed by injunction if the European Court decided that the law was incompatible with Community law. That decision was overturned on appeal, so there was only a certain period when the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and claims is a general point, would have applied. As an excellent lawyer, he would know that.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister suggest that the Government could not have agreed, had they so willed, to indemnify local authorities against the costs thrown away by seeking to enforce the law?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am saying that the hon. Gentleman had heard the Attorney-General's speech from the

Dispatch Box. He said that it would not be proper for him to intervene, that there was no proper basis on which he should intervene and that the law passed by Parliament, which made local authorities responsible for enforcing it, was adequate. The hon. Gentleman has said, quite rightly, that I am not a lawyer, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is. The hon. Gentleman's argument was with the then Attorney-General and I am sure that his successor in office now would be able to repeat the position that the then Attorney-General took.
The hon. Gentleman pretends that the Government have powers to enforce the law, when the law passed by Parliament quite clearly says that it is for local authorities to enforce it. We wish to change the law and that is why we have introduced the Bill. Any hon. Member, or campaigning group, can suggest different modes of enforcement. The hon. Gentleman's preference does not include any such change. I wonder why not.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister makes my point. Had he so willed it, the Attorney-General could have intervened, but he chose not to do so. As a result, the big stores have been allowed to get away with it—the same stores that would have been the first to take to court a single mother who shoplifted in one of their supermarkets. They rely on the law when they want to do so and disobey the law when they choose to do so. The claim by the big stores that they are concerned about consumer choice is a little less credible in the light of their action when trying to prevent United States' warehouse companies from coming here to increase choice.
The normal principle of law is that when a law breaker, by law breaking, adversely affects the interests of a third party which loses financially, the law will intervene to compensate that third party. Stores such as Marks and Spencer and John Lewis have obeyed the law and lost substantial sums as a result. I say again that the Government have connived at that loss and, by the way in which they have encouraged acceptance of the deregulation option, they are encouraging those who have defied the law so wilfully for so long.
The Government have tried to encourage support by, for example, offering worker protection. At a fairly late stage, they included schedule 4, as if they had a real commitment to worker protection. I practised a little in employment law and I can tell the Minister that that protection is illusory. Not only are there great delays in hearings before industrial tribunals but there is no legal aid, as he will know. Only those who are unionised will be likely to have any support. Damages will be limited. I am convinced that the only real protection for workers would be afforded by an option like the Keep Sunday Special option.
The Financial Times report on the way in which Sainsbury puts pressure on its managers was immediately repudiated, and tactically and wisely reversed, but who knows what Sainsbury and others will do if their option is successful today?
My answer to the hon. Member for Reigate, who is consistent in that he supports the free market ideology, is that he and his friends are prepared to put that free market ideology above their concern for law and order. I would have been more impressed had I heard him urging the major stores, when they selectively obeyed the law, to obey all the laws. They have put that ideology above their


concern for small shopkeepers, whose decline in numbers would be accelerated massively if there were total deregulation, and above their concern for the family.
I am confident that one certain feature of total deregulation and the working of one member of the family on a Sunday would be to increase pressures on the family. It would create a negative future for family life, along with all the other pressures. Behind the disintegration of the family and the pressures on the family is the concomitant evil of increasing criminality. One of the joys of the Jewish family and the Indian family is that a day is set aside for family members to be together. Part of the Jewish community's respect for the law derives from the high value that is placed in the Jewish community on the family.
With all respect to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I believe that there are only two major options: either deregulation or an attempt to preserve the special nature of Sunday. Deregulation is the aim of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Just as in 1986, I am convinced that people do not want total deregulation.
Alas, the BBC and others fall into the trap of calling the Shopping Hours Reform Council option a compromise. It is a compromise only in the sense that it would mean deregulation by stages. If the majority of the people who support the SHRC were honest with themselves and honest to hon. Members, they would say that they want total deregulation. They realise that there is not a majority in the House of Commons for total deregulation, so they are attempting to persuade others that they are taking deregulation as far as they want. They should be honest. There is no relevant stopping point to deregulation. If it is six hours, why not make it seven or eight hours?
What would be the Government's position if, by some mischance, the SHRC option were to win a majority, and the Standing Committee were composed, as it must be, of a majority of those who voted in favour of the option, who then altered the provision from six hours to seven or eight hours and took the road to total deregulation?
With respect to the right hon. Member for Honiton, his motive is not the same as that of those who have proposed the so-called compromise; it would amount to a staging post on the way to total deregulation. The right hon. Gentleman's motive is different, although the effect of his amendment would be the same. As there is no natural stopping point, if the opening time were 1 o'clock, why not make it 12 o'clock? It is similar to the Home Office's approach to the opening hours of licensed premises on Sundays. Initially, the Home Office said that it should be 2 o'clock, then it thought, "What is another hour between friends?" Slippage occurred. This issue could go down that same slope.
The deregulation option is proposed by those with a self-interest, in contrast to the KSS option which is supported by those who see the issue as a matter of public interest. I am proud to come from a Christian background and I believe that the Old Testament ordinances in this matter, as in many others such as hygiene, are still relevant to people. We would be acting against the interest of mankind if we sought to disregard them in this context or in others. It is important for the human condition that a day is set aside for recreation. Let it be the same day on which families can choose to stay together. It would be wrong for Sunday working to become a way of life. There would be adverse social consequences for the vulnerable, those without cars, the disabled and so on. There would be major

pressure on city centre shopping and it would, of course, accelerate the existing trend of pressure on small, convenience shops, to their detriment.
If the SHRC were to win today, it would be a triumph for a sectional, highly financed lobby over the public interest. Marks and Spencer has lost a lot of money by obeying the law, unlike those major stores behind whom some Conservative Members now stand. I stand with those hon. Members who admire shops such as the John Lewis Partnership and Marks and Spencer which, to their financial detriment, have decided to obey the law. I hope that Conservative Members also admire those stores. The KSS option is the only one that is likely to create a balance by preserving Sunday and all its pleasures as a special day. I believe that that is right and that it is what our people want.

Mr. Rowe: I shall be brief and hope that the Committee will forgive me and allow me to escape soon after I sit down as I have an important appointment elsewhere. A small but important group of people have a totally principled view about Sunday, and I have enormous respect and admiration for them. They do not shop or travel or expect services from other people on Sunday. That small group of people can genuinely say that they are standing on a solid ground of principle.
In almost every other case such principles have been so distorted that it is difficult to claim a principled stand. For example, it is strange that many of my Christian friends and acquaintances write to me and speak in passionate terms about how wrong it would be to have many people working on Sunday. About 8 million people work on Sunday, and many of them provide inessential services to my Christian friends who think nothing of taking journeys, entering cafes and restaurants or doing a whole range of other things that they need not do but choose to do. Therefore, that element of principle has disappeared.
If those in the Christian community want to persuade Parliament to act in their best interests, they need to mobilise and persuade more people of the truth of their belief—which is my belief. Having done so, they will exercise the kind of power that I would like to see them able to exercise in a democratic society. As a small minority, it cannot ask Parliament to legislate for its purposes as if that were somehow a duty.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for providing me with a way out of my dilemma. I was inclined to support the partial deregulation option because, although it has no special ground of principle, it gives a slight edge to small shops, which I have a great yearning to preserve. I have become increasingly dissatisfied with my position and feel that many of my constituents yearn for a day that is marked off from other days in a way that they can recognise and be able to use. For example, there is great force in the argument that if every day is exactly the same, any suggestion that premium payments will survive is a myth. Such payments will survive for a little while but they will slide away, like so much else.
I worry about the KSS's desire that the big shops should open for the four Sundays before Christmas. If most of Advent is deliberately used for shopping and Christmas is taken to be nothing special, the shops may find that, when Christmas has lost virtually all its meaning, the public will


not spend any more in December than in any other month. Why should they if Christmas has become like any other time of the year?

Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman mentions the introduction of Christmas during the weeks of Advent. Surely he must be aware that most supermarkets start introducing Christmas, by way of Christmas cards, wrapping paper and specially wrapped boxes of chocolates, as early as September or, in some instances, almost immediately after Easter.

8 pm

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that Christmas becomes more like fashion every day. I understand that in February it is already too late to buy summer fashions as they have all gone.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has provided me with a way out of my dilemma. If he were to clean up his act—if I may put it that way—he would have a satisfactory solution. In its present form, his proposition is wrong in that it contains another list of anomalies, as do the other options. There would be no anomalies if he agreed that shops below a certain size, which can be defined in Committee, should be able to open to sell anything that they choose on Sunday morning, as well as in the afternoon if they choose to stay open, and that shops above a certain size should not be allowed to open until Sunday afternoon. That would mean that the large number of people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth)—those who value having at least part of Sunday free of the heavy traffic and noise that the rest of the week brings and who are just as entitled as anyone else to have some peace—would at least know that Sunday mornings were different from the rest of the week. They would not suffer as much disturbance as usual if they chose to have a long lie-in. It would also allow the elderly and frail and those who cannot drive to have access to their local shops.
It is worth bearing in mind that only about 17 per cent. of women over 65 have a driving licence, which is a minute proportion. If local shops were kept open, it would be of tremendous value to such people and give them an edge but the demand to go shopping on Sundays, which does exist, would be met by people being able to shop on Sunday afternoons. The advantage of that solution is that it would be exceedingly easy to administer. When a shop registered for the uniform business rate, it could also register its size. If it were below a certain size, it would be able to open and if it were above that size, it would not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) was wrong to suggest that full, unrestricted, 24-hours-a-day opening would involve no cost for local authorities. That is manifestly untrue as cleansing, inspection and a range of duties would need to be carried out at the expense of local authorities. It would be unrealistic and wrong for the Committee entirely to dictate the country's shopping patterns by legislation. Shopping patterns keep changing. Small shops are struggling and will continue to do so, but it is reasonable to protect the privacy and tranquillity of a substantial slice of the population by saying that Sunday tradinġ should be

restricted, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. His is a very good solution to the problem,+ and I shall support it.
If that solution fails, as is conceivable, I shall support the KSS option, but not because I think that it would be easy to work in its present form. It involves far too many anomalies to make it a comfortable solution but they can, to some extent, be refined. I am disappointed that they have not been refined over the many years that have been available to work them out, but we could perhaps improve the option. I shall support it, if necessary, because I believe that it is sometimes right to suggest by public statement that there is more to life than shopping.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I cannot join the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in supporting the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). In an admirably succinct argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) established the fact that the Committee will be voting either for deregulation or to keep Sunday special—there is no halfway house that can meet the needs and requirements of the country at large.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said that he would vote for the first option because it offered free choice. As one whose first experience of the world of work was as a shop assistant, I can tell him that deregulation gives little or no free choice to people who work in shops. I shall read out part of a letter from a constituent who said that the Bill was
very personal to me because I work in the retail industry, in Central London. This means that time to spend with my family and friends is already in short supply, so anything that lessens it will seriously affect the quality of my family life. I am worried that companies like mine would not be able to operate voluntary arrangements and that everyone would be expected to work Sundays eventually, so cutting into precious time with my family.
Another constituent wrote:
As I see it the main problem from legal Sunday Opening is the probable coercion on Shop Staff. While in legal theory, retail store staff might be given a choice, in reality, the only choice is either, treat Sundays as a normal working day or lose your job, or at the very best your chances of promotion.

Sir George Gardiner: How does the hon. Lady react to what I have been told by many managers of supermarkets in my constituency? Their workers are queuing up to work on Sundays, and they have no difficulty in finding the necessary staff.

Ms Jackson: With respect, when there are 3 million unemployed people, one could offer any kind of gainful employment and queues would form. The hon. Gentleman must not regard any kind of remuneration as being a wage. Shop assistants—certainly part-time shop assistants—receive what I regard as disgracefully low rates of pay. The Government have a large slate of deregulation planned for the coming Session, and I have no doubt that one of the first things to be deregulated—as proved by the abolition of the wages councils—will be any protection of workers' wages or workers' rights.
I have also received a letter from the managing director of Robert Dyas, ironmongers. It states:
We are also very doubtful that any Government proposals for protection of staff are workable, should Sunday trading become the norm. This Company is taking on a steady trickle of staff who have become dismayed at the pressure placed upon them to work on Sundays, whilst their previous employers proclaim that such work is voluntary. I myself have no doubt that if this company was forced, through competitive pressures, to trade on Sundays,


we would be able (if we wished) to 'persuade' large numbers to work … No legislation can cope with this style of insidious pressure.
Another choice about which we have heard a great deal is that of individuals being able to shop when they please. A managing director of the John Lewis Partnership disagrees with that option, saying:
Contrary to what some would suggest, choice for the consumer is actually likely to diminish as larger shops take over the business of smaller ones and villages lose their small convenience stores.
London used to be a series of villages—in many instances it could still be—but that is being rapidly eroded because of the enormous pressures on small businesses. Small businesses are closing at the rate of approximately eight a week. The corner shop, the local shop and the local small market centre will be absolutely demoralised and destroyed by deregulation. Deregulation is not about choice for the consumer or reducing prices, but about the large retail outlets fighting to increase their market share, and that will continue.
The pattern of shopping in this country, as in America, is to move shops to greenfield sites and away from where people live. That is a wonderful way to shop if one has the means of getting to and from those sites. A large proportion of my constituents are pensioners, on some form of social security or exist only because they can make a legal claim on the benefit system. Those people are utterly and totally dependent upon the local shop and being able to walk to it. They cannot afford private transport; in many instances they can barely afford public transport.
The suggestion that everyone does one large weekly shop is nonsense. I know many people who buy only after counting penny and twopenny pieces—and the older one gets the more difficult it is to differentiate between our coins.
The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) referred to the issue of choice raised by the hon. Member for Reigate. Surely there must be a choice for the people who live near retail outlets. They will have no choice at all about a quiet Sunday, or about one day of the week being different from the other six. In my constituency there are two residential areas in which there are large multiple superstores. People live above one of those superstores and the delivery bays of the other store are next door to my residents' front doors. For seven days a week those people will be plagued by enormous delivery vans and by the clanging backwards and forwards of the large steel doors that cover the delivery bays. There will be no Sunday for people who live next door to such superstores.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady raises a valid point. My constituents know where I stand on this issue. They have asked me whether there will be a problem of disturbance by delivery vans. I have looked into the matter and it is apparent that the Highways Acts cover this point. Local authorities can, if they wish, implement the measures contained in those Acts to restrict the number of lorries visiting certain premises. They can even forbid lorries to arrive at particular times of the day or days of the week. The Acts are there; it is for the authorities to use them.

Ms Jackson: If existing Acts are so all-powerful, why were they not enforced? That is why we are here debating the whole issue.

Mr. Fabricant: They are different Acts.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. However strongly hon. Members may feel about the subject, there must be no sedentary interventions.

Ms Jackson: I will give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink).

Dr. Spink: Does the hon. Lady believe that her constituents and mine should be free to have a day away from the disturbance of other people's noise, fumes, traffic and the hustle and bustle of a normal weekday?

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he brings me to my next point.
The hon. Member for Reigate talked about constituents' wishes. The issue of Sunday trading has increased my post by dozens of letters. When I knew that we would be debating this particular amendment I made a less than scientific breakdown of percentages. Of the people who wrote to me of their own volition—they did not forward cards presented to them by the big multiple stores—73·6 per cent. of my constituents wished to keep Sunday special. I was interested to see on the front page of The Independent today that nationally 74 per cent. of people wish to keep Sunday special.
That is not surprising because the pressures of modern-day life are enormous and the break-up of families seems to be continuous. Sunday is the only day on which families can meet and be together. I endorse the opinions of all hon. Members who have said that there should be one day in the week that should be nationally regarded as special.
How can special payments for people who work on Sunday logically be achieved? What would be special about people working on Sunday if we were to take away its special nature? There would be no logical reason to pay them double time or overtime.
I believe that we have seen sufficient decay and sufficient reduction of the things that individuals value intensely and totally. It may be religion, it may be being able to communicate within families, it may be to be able to indulge in some kind of sporting activity—a pursuit I am not particularly interested in—it may be a whole range of issues, but if we continually reduce everything to a norm we take away something that is vital and essential to our experience as human beings. There are differences; there should be differences; we must keep Sunday special.

Mr. Douglas French: It is important that the Committee does not lose sight of the fact that tonight we are trying to select a particular option. That will then go forward to Standing Committee for further refinement. I assume that the further refinement will be in the broad spirit of whatever option is chosen, but it means that there will be another opportunity to make some modifications to whatever option is selected. Hon. Members should choose the option that comes nearest to the particular one that they would like to see, with a view to further modification later. Hon. Members must seek to select an option that they think stands a reasonable chance of getting through with the largest majority, bearing in mind the order of voting. That could make a significant difference.
The Committee must consider the fact that the solution needs to be a simple one, which is easily understood by not only the expert lawyers but by the small shopkeepers who


will have to comply with it. It must be capable of being enforced with a maximum amount of certainty and a minimum amount of cost.
We need to guard against replacing the current confused and confusing set of laws with a further set of laws that are unenforceable and equally confusing. Whenever we make laws we should make good sound laws, not laws that invite people to break them at the first opportunity. The conduct of certain retailers in breaking the law as they have during the past year has been despicable.
The guiding principle that we must try to stick to is that the formula that we adopt must not be too complex. At first glance, that principle drew me towards the simplicity and ease of enforcement of the total deregulation solution. I was much impressed by the persuasive advocacy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). Total deregulation is the easiest option to enforce, and the easiest for people to understand; I do not believe, however, that it is really in keeping with the mood of the people.
I am sure that some people want to take advantage of shopping facilities on Sundays, although others do not. Some want to be able to work on Sundays, while others prefer not to. Most important, a significant group want Sunday to be a day on which they can be fairly certain of securing a degree of peace and quiet—a day on which they can relax, indulge in recreation and pause to wind down before the start of the week. In that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell).
I regard Sunday as a different day: a day on which the pace of life should be slower, which provides the opportunity to do something a little different from what one does for the rest of the week. It is clear from the 700 or more letters that I have received from constituents that a significant number of them want to ensure that Sunday does not become like every other day of the week.

Mr. Fabricant: Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend wants to keep Sunday special. I think that most of us want to keep it special, but is it not special in Scotland, where deregulation has taken place? If, as some have said, retailers are already behaving as though there were no law in operation, is not Sunday special now?

Mr. French: I do not consider the comparison with Scotland particularly valid. It does not promote my hon. Friend's case very well. Scotland is, after all, an entirely different place, and its circumstances are also different.
As I was saying, I subscribe to the sentiments of the Keep Sunday Special campaign to some extent. I feel, however, that in trying to give effect to what are certainly laudable sentiments the campaign has advanced a solution that does its case no good, because it is largely unenforceable. It fails all the criteria of simplicity and easy enforcement that I require.
We need only examine the campaign's proposed formula to realise how difficult its enforcement would be. It proposes, for instance, that whether shops open should depend on whether the goods sold are "wholly or mainly" of a particular type. I searched the proposals for a definition of "wholly or mainly", but was unable to find one. It is not at all easy to identify when a shop would be fulfilling the

Keep Sunday Special formula and when it would not. I could take hon. Members to certain shops that would present them with considerable difficulty.
Let us examine the second and third categories on the KSS list. First, there is the newsagent's shop where the goods on sale are wholly or mainly newspapers, periodicals and confectionery; secondly, there is the convenience shop where the goods are wholly or mainly groceries, domestic cleaning materials and confectionery. Confectionery is common to both categories; but, as has already been pointed out, a sweetshop would not qualify.
Most important, a "wholly or mainly" provision is likely to be extremely unfair to specialist shops, many of which are small and which often bring character to our city centres—character that can all too easily be lost. We should ensure that such shops remain viable.

Mr. John Butterfill: If the KSS —RSAR proposals were accepted, would such shops open alone in city centres whose streets were deserted?

Mr. French: My point is that specialist shops selling precisely the same items as convenience stores, newsagents and other shops in the same category would not be able to sell their goods, unlike the designated shops.

Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend has not answered my question.

Mr. French: I am happy to give way again.

Mr. Butterfill: Even if the provision were extended to the specialist shops about which my hon. Friend professes concern, would they open on their own in city centres?

Mr. French: I think it highly likely. Certainly, I think that they should be given the same opportunity as other shops selling the same items.
I had some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), who drew on some of the telling examples presented by the Consumers Association. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the KSS proposals would make it possible to buy toys and books from a newsagent, but not from a toyshop or bookshop. It would be possible to buy meat or bread from a small supermarket, but not from a butcher or baker. A drill could be bought from a small do-it-yourself store, but not from a specialist electrical store. That strikes me as completely lacking in logic. It is confusing and unfair, and I believe that it would ultimately be unenforceable.

Mr. Alison: I must contest my hon. Friend's claim that the proposal lacks logic. By definition, in the category of shops that could open, the articles described by my hon. Friend could not be part of the "wholly or mainly" definition; they would be residual items, and would present no kind of competition with shops whose whole occupation is selling such goods.

Mr. French: I understand my right hon. Friend's point. However, we would have to be constantly involved in judgments about what constitutes "wholly or mainly". Of course, there will be clear-cut illustrations, but many will be on the margin. That is the difficulty with your proposals.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. They are not my proposals.

Mr. French: I am sorry, Dame Janet. I meant the KSS proposals.


I also see some difficulty in another aspect of the KSS proposals—the demarcation line in the definition of an area of 280 sq m as the relevant floor area. It appears that car parks and other external areas, storage areas, corridors and stairs, staff rooms and lavatories are all excluded from the calculation of floor area in the consideration where the shops meet the size criterion; but any areas where goods are displayed, such as window areas, are to be considered part of the relevant floor area, even if customers have no access to them. Parts of the shop from which customers are normally excluded, such as the area behind the counter or the till booths at a check-out, will be included in the calculation. What a crystal-clear definition that is.

Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend accept that those who will be charged with the responsibility of enforcement— representative bodies, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—say that they foresee no difficulties in enforcing the KSS proposals?

Mr. French: That appears to be the official line of those associations. I have spoken to many individual councils, however, and it seems that that view is not widely held. This is another example of associations not properly representing the views of many of their members.

Mr. Llwyd: Every day magistrates courts impose demarcation zones in shops for off-licence purposes. As a lawyer, I have never encountered any difficulties in that regard.

Mr. French: I shall describe the difficulties in a moment. I maintain that such an arrangement would present problems. It might produce a lot of work for surveyors, but it would also create difficulties whenever a shop was altered. I do not want someone who is developing a business to encounter the complication of falling into a different category the moment he wants to add a small extension to his shop.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. French: No, I must press on.
Such a provision would be difficult to enforce and would produce peculiar anomalies. The most obvious is that a shop of 270 sq m would be treated differently from a sister shop down the road of 290 sq m selling the same goods. That lacks logic. Although local authorities may be able to undertake the task, they would incur costs in measuring shops and reaching agreement on the wholly or mainly definition. That is a recipe for disagreement and dispute—even if it produced a lot of work for solicitors and surveyors. I reject the KSS proposal for those reasons.

Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. I am a chartered surveyor and can relieve him of his anxieties. Local authorities already perform that function because, under planning regulations and byelaws, they have responsibility for ensuring that permitted floor areas for sales as against other purposes are not exceeded. The problems that my hon. Friend envisages will not arise.

Mr. French: It would entail a lot of unnecessary cost.

Mr. Butterfill: But local authorities alreådy incur it.

Mr. French: But shops change all the time. No doubt my hon. Friend, as a surveyor, sees some benefit in that arrangement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am arguing that such an arrangement would create unnecessary work for solicitors and surveyors, for which the local authority and ultimately the taxpayer would have to pay.
A different approach is adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). Amendment No. 35 does not, in relation to the goods that may be sold, adopt the wholly or mainly formula but specifies a limited number of goods that might be sold in specific shops on Sunday morning. One accepts that involves some complexity but one sees the logic. I cannot envisage a Sunday on which one could not buy a newspaper from a newsagent or medicinal or surgical products from a pharmacy. It is also very much part of Sunday to be able to buy plants and garden supplies from nurseries.
I have difficulty with some of my right hon. Friend's other categories. Garden accessories present many definitional difficulties, but my right hon. Friend's broad approach of tightly restricted morning trading combined with total deregulation in the afternoon is good. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) made fun of the Sunday morning formula proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, yet suggested that antiques might be sold by a do-it-yourself centre. That verges on a far more ridiculous situation than does the formula suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.
There has been no mention yet of the KSS proposal relating to permitted goods sold from garden centres, motor supply and do-it-yourself shops. The word "permitted" presents a definitional quandary every bit as difficult as that criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby in respect of the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.
In a nutshell, amendment No. 35 would keep Sunday morning special and has many attractive features. It is an appropriate solution, not least because of the obvious inadequacies of other proposals before the Committee. Partial deregulation is not credible—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is a constant buzz of what I imagine to be private conversations, which is not acceptable. If the hon. Members responsible hope to catch my eye later, they will be unlucky.

Mr. French: I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that partial deregulation is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is far too close to full deregulation and would quickly destroy the character of Sunday, which I have an interest in preserving. Partial deregulation would be harmful to small shopkeepers, and a diversity of small shops is valuable and must be retained—particularly in city shopping centres. Allowing large shops a continuous six-hour period of trading between 10 am and 6 pm would turn Sunday into a low-key Saturday—and that is not something that I or the majority of my constituents desire. I want Sunday to remain a trading half day with the minimum of complexities in respect of the type or size of shop, type of goods or hours of opening.
If amendment No. 35 is passed, I would want to make one or two modifications in Committee and to re-examine the types of shop that it allowed to open and the sort of goods they could sell. I would like to place some finite


limit on afternoon deregulation. At present, all shops could continue to remain open for the rest of the day, and a six o'clock closing time would strike a fair balance. Such a formula would get rid of complexities, keep costs to a minimum, make enforcement practicable and satisfy both those who want to shop on Sunday and those who do not and want it to remain a little different. It would satisfy also those who want to work on Sunday and those who do not. Amendment No. 35 therefore represents the best option before the Committee.

Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), ho clearly brings his legal expertise at the Bar to analysing the various options. He has a special interest in small businesses but perhaps did not examine that sector sufficiently in relation to small shops. The hon. Gentleman referred to the mood of the people, and it is incumbent on the Committee to reflect the totality of that mood.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) indicated in an intervention that Parliament should adopt the views taken by constituents, and he warned that if we do not we shall receive an avalanche of letters from constituents who will lose their jobs if we do not follow a particular route. With 3 million unemployed, there will anyway be many redundant Conservative Members after the next general election. That would truly be retribution. However, as to the mood of the public, we cannot abrogate our responsibilities.
We are not here to respond to the dictates of single-issue pressure groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) referred to a single-issue pressure group. We have all received letters on this subject from such groups. But at the end of the day it falls to the House of Commons to make a balanced decision in the interests of our constituents.
The hon. Member for Gloucester talked about the mood of the people. It is incumbent on us to catch that mood tonight. The hon. Gentleman referred to peace and quiet. He said that he supported amendment No. 35. If we were to get full deregulation, there would not be much peace and quiet in our daily lives.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a variety of anomalies that he found in the Keep Sunday Special documentation and the option. Those anomalies fall in the category of myths, myths and shibboleths. We can spend a lot of time talking about those anomalies. It was suggested that they could be examined on Report and I am sure that that will be the case.
The hon. Gentlemn referred to the extra cost to local authorities if the Keep Sunday Special option is adopted. If there is full deregulation, there will be additional costs on local authorities. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to services that are offered at present by local authorities on a Sunday.
I support the option put forward by Keep Sunday Special and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform. I will vote for amendments Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 8 in accordance with the advice given by the Secretary of State when he set out the options open to us. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) in his place because he referred to a specific point to which I shall return later. He said:

No serious employment protection in the future is available without keeping Sunday special … keeping Sunday special is the only way to protect our workers.
That must be the case. We have seen many documents on what happens in Europe. For example, there is no trading on Sunday in Germany. There has never been trading on Sunday and there has been no question of the German economy faltering, floundering, weakening or slipping.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is in a terrible state.

Mr. Bell: That is because of reunification, not because there is no shopping on Sunday.
Another significant fact about Germany is that, notwithstanding the fact that there is no law for trading on a Sunday, there is no breaking of the law. The law has not been broken and enforceability has not been necessary. That is a significant difference between Germany and the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members have talked about the way in which large retail stores have broken the law over many years. That reflects a different attitude from that in Germany.
I spent many years in France. Certainly, Sunday in France is not the same as Sunday in this country. There have been many jokes from French tourists about Sunday closing in London and England. It is not the same in France where Sunday is certainly much livelier. France has a Sunday shopping law which prevents all stores from opening on a Sunday. The Virgin megastore was the last to discover what can happen when one opens on a Sunday against the law of the land.
The difference between France and the United Kingdom is that the law has been enforced in France. Local inspectors have been involved and there are several cases before the courts. It is interesting to see that the French have not gone along the route of taking cases of being open on a Sunday to the European Court under article 30 and saying that this is somehow a quantitive restriction on imports on a Sunday.
The French law has something which we have had since the Shops Act 1950 came into force—employee protection for Sunday work. It is a legal obligation that a person does not work on a Sunday, but if he does work on a Sunday there must be another day in lieu. One of the consequences of the Shops Act has been that penalties have been imposed in the criminal courts if employers did not respect the obligation not to make someone work on a Sunday. Under this Bill, that provision will go.
8.45 pm
The right hon. Member for Selby referred to employee protection. At the outset, I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has worked extremely hard to get some form of employee protection into the Bill. There has been a series of extensions of the original proposals into the area of worker protection. However, the worker protection that will come out of the Bill will be through the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which deals with industrial tribunals.
If a worker on a Sunday has any difficulty with the owner of the retail shop or chain, he must take his case to an industrial tribunal. That is not necessarily a way forward that protects the right of the worker. He may have bought himself a law suit but he has certainly not bought himself justice. We should bear that in mind when we consider employee protection. It is not sufficient simply to say that


we are protecting those who work on a Sunday by introducing employee protection. The employer then has a whole series of hurdles to get over if he is to enforce his right.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the state of Massachusetts in the United States introduced a similar employee protection law when it deregulated some time ago. Indeed, I introduced a similar provision when we debated the issue previously. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been no problems with the law in the state of Massachusetts—it has not led to any significant litigation or difficulties.

Mr. Bell: There has been a whole series of erosions of rights before industrial tribunals. Our research clearly shows that applicants without legal representation have been successful in only 1 per cent. of cases where the employer was represented. Other figures show that trade unions frequently help their members to fight cases before industrial tribunals, thus mitigating the absence of legal aid provision. However, most of the 2·2 million retail employees are part-time, non-union workers and do not have the same way of defending their actions.
That is not simply my view; it is the view of those who have specialised in this subject. They have examined the subject and believe that the unfair dismissal law cannot be used to provide unqualified job security rights for shopworkers. Both the substance of the law and the statutory remedies for unfair dismissal suffer from weaknesses which would substantially limit the effectiveness of schedule 4 to the Bill. I return to the point made by the right hon. Member for Selby. If we wish to have employee protection on a Sunday, we will get it only by voting for the Keep Sunday Special option.
A number of statements have been made by trade union leaders. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen referred to USDAW. I have received representations from the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. I must declare an interest. I am sponsored by the GMB and I am comfortable with that fact, although I do not propose to follow its recommendation. I am being whiter than white when it comes to this issue.
We have also had the views of Unison. That union has clearly said that the Keep Sunday Special option is the one that we should support. Lest I give the impression that we are entirely unionised and we entirely support the view of certain trade unions, let me say that we also have the views of the British Chamber of Commerce and therefore I link the interests of trade unions with those of businesses. They say clearly that the updating of the Shops Act along the lines of schedule 1 to the Bill—that is, the joint option of KSS and RSAR—offers a relatively straightforward basis for updating the law on Sunday trading which is economically enforceable. I quote:
Total deregulation would lead to many small shop closures, less protection of staff, increased local authority and public service costs and ultimately higher prices to the consumer.
I shall return to the subject of small businesses because small shops and medium-sized shops are small businesses. Two weeks ago, in the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer lifted the requirement of an audit on small businesses. He lifted the threshold on VAT. He offered a consultation on late payment for small businesses. Yet the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who is with us tonight and is listening—I know how barristers listen with one ear even if they have another one occupied—are going

for total deregulation. That is incompatible with the objective of helping small businesses and overlooks the point that small shopkeepers are small businesses.
At least the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), to whose speech I listened with great interest, had the grace not to say that the document which we have, urging Conservative Members in the first instance to vote for total deregulation and, if that was not acceptable, partial deregulation, had been left on a photocopying machine. Generally, when we have leaks from the Conservatives, the document is left on the photocopying machine for a Labour party researcher. That was not the case.
The argument that I wish to make in relation to the speech of the right hon. Lady is that there is no halfway house between full deregulation and partial deregulation. The Committee must decide clearly tonight that either it wants total deregulation or it wants the option of Keep Sunday Special. We all know the route that partial deregulation will take—it will fairly quickly become full deregulation. I seek, therefore, to persuade the Committee, as we are in the business of persuading, that the Keep Sunday Special option is the option available.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in his place because he made an interesting and incisive speech on Second Reading. He referred to defining the essence of Sunday. We have all looked upon that concept of Sunday. We have all said how we want to keep Sunday special. Some of us regard it as a day of leisure. Some of us regard it as a day of rest. Others talked of a day of tranquillity, of contemplation, of reflection. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) talked of it as a day special to the six others.
We have touched briefly upon the question of religion. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned it; the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned it; but we have to bear in mind that in this country we have a Christian ethic and a Christian ethos. We fully accept the other religions. We accept that we are a multi-racial society and also a multi-religious society—we respect the Jewish faith and the Muslim faith—but we open each sitting of Parliament with prayers as part of the established Church. We cannot simply take out of the equation the element of the sabbath, that essence of our belief, when it comes to the subject of Sunday opening.
I was quite enlivened one day in church when the priest said that more people go to a church on a Sunday than go to a football match on a Saturday. It may be that more people now watch the football match on Sky television on a Sunday than go to church, but we have the Christian ethos and we have the Christian value. We ought not to overlook that when we discuss these issues.
I would not wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly, but I must leave the issue where I began. It is incumbent upon the Committee to make a decision in the national interest, in the interests of all of our people; not simply those who have written letters; not simply those who have enlisted single-issue pressure groups; not simply those who have lobbied today for a six-hour day for Sunday shopping. It is for us to make the final decision. It is in our hands to resolve the issue once and for all and to resolve in Committee and on Report other aspects that


might arise. The gift is ours; it cannot be taken away from us. Members of Parliament must decide tonight, and, in my view, the only option is the Keep Sunday Special option.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: We can all agree on what the hon. Gentleman has just finished by saying—that the matter has been dragging on for far too long and must be settled once and for all. I applaud the Government's determination to do just that.
On the subject of small businesses, and on the subject of Scotland, a friend of mine who runs a small business in Scotland said that when the big shops in Princes street open on Sunday, as British Home Stores does, more people come in to shop in the small shops in the arcades on Sunday. If big shops open, it appears to do good to small businesses rather than the harm that is sometimes expected.

Mr. Lord: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I will not, because a lot of people want to speak and if I give way to my hon. Friend I shall be tempted to give way to all sorts of other people who want to ask me lots of questions. It is out of fairness to everyone else. Perhaps my hon. Friend will catch the Chairman's eye.
What are the elements that I believe must affect the decision that I make this evening? The first is that it should accord as far as possible with the wishes of the majority of the people. Secondly, we should decide on an approach which will give people as much freedom as possible to make a choice about whether they want to shop or they do not. Thirdly, we must do it in such a way that we should respect the law rather than have contempt for it. Fourthly, we must do it in a way which incurs the least possible cost to the taxpayer. Fifthly, we must protect the consciences of those who choose not to work on Sunday.
Applying those rules, what do I find to be the situation? As far as the overwhelming will of the people is concerned, I am persuaded that the majority want to be free to shop or not, as they choose, on Sunday. It has nothing to do with keeping Sunday special. If they want it to be special by not shopping they will not shop. Some will want it to be special by being the one day in the week when they can shop with their families. Bearing in mind that the patterns of life have changed very much since the Shops Act was introduced in 1950, that families often come together and it is much better that they should come together with some kind of an activity on Sunday than sit stewing in front of the television set, and that 11 million people already shop on Sundays and will go on doing so whichever way we decide tonight, and that the church shops are often open on Sunday so the sin has gone out of Sunday shopping, I think that the first of those elements has been fulfilled if the overwhelming majority of people want to choose deregulation.
As to free choice, the Keep Sunday Special option offers the least free choice, the partial deregulation, the next least free choice, amendment No. 35 the next degree of free choice and total deregulation the most free choice.
As to respect for the law, we should have learnt the lesson by now that restrictions in this area lead to contempt for the law and the injustice of some being prosecuted while others are not, some being forcibly closed down while others are open, and theė absurdity of thė distinctions

which are so much honoured in the breach, governing what one may sell, what one may not sell and in what shop one may not do it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said, it is crazy to substitute one set of restrictions for another. It will bring the law into disrepute, as powerful and wealthy shops break the law, get round it or ignore it. About 30 years ago I was asked to advise whether a certain well known company was breaking the Shops Act by holding sales of all the wonderful items that it made in people's houses on Sunday. The name of the company must, of course, remain secret, but it produced plastic ware. I was a young barrister, and I advised the firm that what it suggested would be in breach of the Shops Act. I do not blame the firm, but it totally ignored my advice, and went on to make large fortunes for anyone who invested in the business.
I say that merely to make the point that, in one way or another, people get round, ignore or break such laws, and it will be the wealthy organisations and companies that do so.

9 pm

Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No. The same rule must apply to my hon. Friend, tempting though his interruption may be, as applied to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), to whom I had to say no.
There is no doubt that unless we get rid of all those regulations there will not be respect for the law.
With regard to expense, we have only to consider the expense of policing those multifarious regulations, whichever option we choose. If we choose partial deregulation someone will have to decide whether a shop is larger than 280 sq m, or whether it is open for minutes longer than six hours between 10 am and 6 pm. Someone will have to decide whether a shop really is a pharmacy, and therefore exempt. There would be the absurdity whereby a supermarket of 270 sq m could open all day, but one of 290 sq m could open for only six hours.
That is nothing compared with the policing necessary to enforce option 2 of the Keep Sunday Special regulations. Policing at some cost would be required to see whether a shop was exempt, regardless of size. Someone would have to ask: is it a pharmacy, selling medicines, or, if it size-limited, is it no larger than 280 sq m? Is it selling goods that are "wholly or mainly" the goods that one would expect to buy in a grocery shop, a newsagent, or a flower shop? If it is a larger exempt shop, is it selling only permitted goods? If it is exempt because of location, is it a tourist shop selling "wholly or mainly" souvenirs or confectionery? If it is a farm shop, is it selling "wholly or mainly" home-grown produce? If a very small shop claiming to be 10 sq m or less is being investigated, is it 10·25 sq m, or 11·2 sq m, and so on? That is crazy.
If hon. Members want to hear me make a speech against my interests as a lawyer, I am making one now. Having as many regulations as we can is a wonderful way to give money to lawyers. [Interruption.] I am speaking against my own professional interests, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) knows that that will strengthen my argument. When one speaks against one's interests there is more credibility in what one says—or so one hopes.


No doubt it will be in the interests of some people for there to be some form of regulation, but there can be no possible doubt that the least expensive option—my fourth requirement—is total deregulation.

Mr. Booth: rose—

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No; the same rule must apply. I am sorry.
Finally, my fifth requirement is to protect the consciences of those who do not choose to work. That is an important matter and I am delighted that the Government have come round to the idea of accepting all the requirements of those most closely concerned with that aspect. The Government have given that protection in total regulation, as in all others, and I do not need to repeat those provisions.
I am driven, Miss Fookes, to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dame Janet."] I am sorry, Dame Janet.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): That is quite all right, Mr. Lawrence.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Applying the facts as I see them to the requirements that I believe necessary, I am driven inexorably to the conclusion that there should be total deregulation. Once we accept that Sunday opening is not a sin but is what a majority of people want, and that Sunday will still be special if, for any reason—people have different ideas about what the special nature of Sunday is —we want to make it special, once we ensure that those who do not want to work are not forced to do so, once we ensure that it will be cheaper for the taxpayer, simpler and less likely to bring the law into disrepute than total deregulation, then total deregulation seems to me to be the only sensible conclusion.
That is what the Auld committee, after 18 months' work during which it contacted 500 individuals and organisations, and considered 7,000 submissions, decided:
We are firmly of the view that there is no interest, or combination of interests, that justifies the retention of … regulation
of shopping hours.
We have considered as an independent issue whether in any event a form of control can be devised that would be fair, simple and readily enforceable. We have examined in great detail a wide range of suggested different forms of legal control … none would provide a fair or readily enforceable system.
That is what has always happened in Scotland, and it works well there. I am not impressed at all by my hon. Friends who brush aside Scotland as though it is of no interest in the matter just because it is the most inconvenient example to their argument. Three-quarters of the shops in Scotland do not open, so there would be far less noise than my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) fears.
The quarter of the shops which do open bring shopping interest to their area. The big shops, as I have said, bring trade to the smaller shops also—or so my Scottish friends tell me. They also provide jobs for students at the weekends or for people who want to have some time at the weekend to supplement their incomes.
My hon. Friend will know that I do not follow the Scots everywhere, particularly in legal matters. However, on this occasion we would all do well to follow the call of the bagpipers.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The standard of debate during this evening and this afternoon has been very high. The Whips are off, and there may be a lesson for us all in that.
I wish to comment on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), although I hesitate to do so because I well know his standing as a Queen's counsel of great eminence. However, if I understood his thesis in connection with the Keep Sunday Special option, I believe that he said that the law would be brought into some disrepute if regulation were necessary. That must be the best possible argument for abolishing Parliament.
I shall be brief, as time is short. I believe sincerely that total deregulation is wrong in principle and that it will not work. I listened carefully to the extremely powerful and well-argued speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). I disagreed with her and shall elaborate on why shortly.
The right hon. Lady said that the second option, the Keep Sunday Special option, was in some way complex and would be unworkable. I will make the obvious point that the fine-tuning exercises can take place at another stage and that today we are dealing more with the principle. We are not dealing with the minutiae of the Bill, and those matters can be discussed on another occasion.
I am afraid that the partial deregulation option appears to me to be a Pandora's box. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, it is also a slippery slope. It will bring deregulation via the back door and, to that extent, it may be a dishonest—I use that word advisedly—option.
The fourth option was introduced by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for what were, I am sure, the best possible and most honourable of motives. However, I would classify his version with the Pandora's box. It will open the door, and the door will then fly open with the wind.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Llwyd: Time is short, and I should like to make progress if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Total deregulation is, in my view, wrong. It is not only simplistic but a dangerous option for many thousands of small shop proprietors. They would face two real problems. The first is the problem of having to open for seven days. If a shop has a staff of perhaps one or two persons, will the proprietors be able to handle a seven-day working week? Should they have to face a seven-day working week? The short answer is no. Hon. Members have a seven-day working week, but we are a funny breed anyway. One should not reasonably expect a person to work for seven days a week.
What happens if small shop proprietors do not work for seven days and want to keep their customers? I am talking not about city centre areas but about smaller towns, such as those which I represent, which have the larger stores on their outskirts. If proprietors want to keep their customers and they do not want to work seven days a week, they will have to bring in extra employees to cover the seventh day. Many of those businesses operate on minimal margins, and the proposals will break them as surely as I am standing here.


No doubt, there are one or two problems of fine-tuning to be dealt with. I do not pretend that this option is perfect as it stands, but surely in this place we can fine-tune or hone measures when necessary.
The right hon. Member for Honiton foresaw that a major problem would be posed by the need to know the floor area of shops. But all that information is on file already. District valuers have it for the purposes of the uniform business rate. All they need to do is put it on someone's desk. I fear that no surveyors will have to be instructed—the information is all on file, so there is no problem. It is a dud point. Moreover, I am sure that analysis of the problems that hon. Members have identified in the KSS option will show that none is insurmountable.
I firmly believe that the KSS option is the right one, because it is a reasonable package. It is also highly practical, and as a lawyer I do not foresee any problems with implementation. It will open the door to smaller firms; if they want to, they can open their shops. Larger concerns may open during the run-up to Christmas. That provides choice. I therefore disagree with hon. Members who say that it is the least attractive option in terms of free choice. The choice offered by the KSS proposal is more than adequate.
One of two fine-tuning exercises may take place; I acknowledge that one or two slight problems may need ironing out. Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about the rights of employees. I believe that the KSS option ensures that their rights are protected and will mean an extension of choice to the public—with added safeguards for staff.
I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that legislation is overdue. Tonight we have a real opportunity, and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber must grasp it. The law certainly has fallen into disrepute, and our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that the new legislation does not fall into the same trap.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) pointedly and rightly said that the cynical lawbreaking by some of our larger concerns had been disgracefully bad for the rule of law. He asked what we should do about the lawbreakers. The short answer is that the Bill provides for bringing them before a court of law. I hope sincerely that they will be taken to court; otherwise, the whole exercise will be a complete waste of time.

Mr. Sheerman: Some of the companies in the forefront of this campaign used to be names that we regarded with great admiration. We used to think that the Sainsburys of this world were progressive companies in the retail trade, but they have changed. They have led this charge; they have led this lawbreaking. Is not that disturbing and astounding?

Mr. Llwyd: I entirely agree; it has been a disgrace. Those companies should be ashamed of themselves, driven as they are by only one motive—profit. That is abhorrent—

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: They also have their customers in mind.

Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber long. She has been here for five minutes, whereas I have sat through five hours of debate. Let us have an element of decorum.
Those companies should be ashamed of themselves because they have been selective about adhering to the law. If a person is caught shoplifting, whether on a Saturday, a Sunday or any other day, he is likely to be prosecuted.
Time and time again, local authorities have turned a blind eye to lawbreaking. Some have decided as a matter of policy not to enforce the law, but I am sure that others are unable to do so because of financial constraints. I hope that the Committee will vote for the second option, but that new law can only be adhered to if local authorities are able to ensure that it is upheld. It is no use saying that some local authorities will police the law and others will not, because we would then be back at square one. We must ensure that local authorities have the resources to police the new legislation carefully and properly. They must prosecute all fairly and without fear. The Home Office must accept the scale of the problem and ensure that the local authorities receive the required resources to perform their function.
9.15 pm
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the environmental impact of Sunday trading. The Association for the Conservation of Energy estimates that 1 million tonnes of additional CO2 emissions will result from complete deregulation and the resulting extra traffic.
It is important to remind the Committee of one topical, important point. When the Government introduced VAT on fuel, with which I disagreed, they argued that it would lead to a reduction of 1·5 million tonnes in CO2 emissions. In one fell swoop, however, we could drive a coach and horses through that intention, because total deregulation would sanction the emission of an extra 1 million tonnes of CO2. That point is not peripheral to the argument because we live in the world and we have a duty to protect our environment. If the Government are truly committed to the Rio agreement on emissions, they should take that on board.
The only viable option is the Keep Sunday Special option. I urge hon. Members to vote for that option because it will give the consumer what he needs, protect smaller shops and give larger retailers a say. It will also ensure that workers' rights are preserved. I urge hon. Members to vote for that option.

Mr. Couchman: I am pleased to have been called to speak in this important debate.
Last week, the House gave the Bill a Second Reading by a massive majority. It did so for one good reason—the law is in disrepute. It has proved to be unenforceable because it is shot through with anomalies. Tonight when we vote, however, we must ensure that we do not support an option that will create similar anomalies and contention.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) produced a most interesting option at the very last moment. It is, however, a complete nightmare. Who will tell housewives who run out of something on a Sunday morning that they cannot buy the necessary groceries from the corner shop? That is absolutely beyond the pale. It is not possible to support something so fundamentally flawed.

Mr. Butterfill: We are on common ground so far.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend might care to listen.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton suggested that it might be possible to amend his option in Standing Committee. That seems to me to be an entire cop-out.
We are then faced with the possibility of total deregulation, which was proposed most eloquently and powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). It still has a good deal of attraction for me. I voted for total deregulation in the unsuccessful attempt to reform the law in 1986 and I still feel considerable warmth towards that option. However, I do not expect it to succeed in the Committee tonight.
For a long time, I have nailed my colours to the mast of the Shopping Hours Reform Council compromise—the only real compromise among the options that are offered.
I have a great deal to say about the Keep Sunday Special campaign. I view it as a complete nightmare for lawyers. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said that it would be a real field day for lawyers if we were to end up with the Keep Sunday Special option.
It seems that there is a certain amount of dissembling among those who proposed the RSAR option, which has now become the combined KSS-RSAR option. In Scotland, Marks and Spencer opens two of its stores on Sunday. It announced several months in advance—even before the shopping centre was open—that a recently opened store would be open on Sundays. Marks and Spencer led the way and was not led by others. That gives the lie to the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) earlier this evening.
Much has been made of the way in which Marks and Spencer is preserving the small shopkeeper. I found an interesting article on a shuttle bus which it runs to the Fosse Park shopping centre in Leicestershire. The shuttle bus runs through all the villages, taking the villagers away from the small village shops and putting them in the large store at Fosse Park.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Couchman: I shall not give way at all because I have sat here for five hours waiting to make a short contribution.

Mr. Lord: Marks and Spencer did not break the law.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend says that Marks and Spencer has not been breaking the law, and indeed it has not. However, it may well be that Marks and Spencer is preparing for a change in the law.
I understand that, when stores are interviewing applicants for new jobs, potential employees are asked whether they would be prepared to work Sundays. There has been a certain amount of dissembling on that matter. If the law changes to allow Marks and Spencer to trade legally south of the border, as it is doing north of the border, it certainly will do so. We should do away with the dissembling on that issue.
It seems that the Keep Sunday Special option totally ignores the social changes that have occurred in the 40-odd years since the 1950 Act was passed. It ignores the fact that many more women go out to work but remain the principal shoppers in households. Sunday shopping has come as a great boon to them. I visited a shop in my constituency

where many families were doing their weekly shop as a family because mum could come out, too, because she was not at work as she was during the week.
There is a demand for a liberal change in the law and not for a more restrictive change in the law. Half the population who regularly shop once a month on a Sunday do not want to find themselves with a more restrictive choice than they have now. The list of exceptions that the KSS option would allow leads one to believe that that option has been drawn up in a way that is as near Sabbatarian as its promoters could get away with.
Much fun was had by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) about the fact that I like to go to antique shops on Sunday. I only wish that I could have responded to his suggestion that, in future, I will have to go to B and Q for my antiques. That seems a most unlikely place for antique collectors to spend their leisure time on Sundays.
There are, as we have heard from various hon. Members, bakers, butchers, book shops, boat yards, car showrooms, caravan showrooms, carpet shops, compact disc sellers, charity shops, china and glass shops, clothes shops, confectioners, craft shops, curtain and blind shops, electrical shops, furniture shops—even greengrocers—jewellers, kitchen shops, lingerie shops, pet shops, shoe shops, stationers, textile shops and toy shops.

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Dame Janet. That is a very tedious list. This is the Committee stage of the Bill, yet hon. Members are getting up and refusing all interventions. Will you rule on that? It is quite extraordinary that hon. Members are starting their speeches by saying that they will not take interventions and then they go on to read long and boring lists.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the Floor whether to permit an intervention. I am not able as Chairman to judge the value of a speech unless it becomes tedious repetition.

Mr. Sheerman: It is.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It has to be considerably more tedious than that.

Mr. Couchman: Thank you, Dame Janet, for your support.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield has made many interventions during this debate. My point is that, among those many categories of shops—mostly small shops—some 39,000 will not be allowed to trade on a Sunday. That will mean that 39,000 shops that are currently trading, either legally or illegally, will have to close under the KSS option. Many thousands of workers will lose their Sunday work, alongside the 80,000 who now work for the major stores—the supermarkets—on Sundays. What sort of worker protection do the proponents of the KSS option view that to be? It seems to me that it is no option whatever.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not speak for much longer. We need some form of compromise, because many people hold deep reservations about Sunday shop opening. In reforming the law, I believe that the Committee must take those worries into account. The restriction on large shops, which is in the SHRC option—the six-hour option—will mean a freezing of the present situation and we shall not see many more shops


opening on a Sunday. If the partial deregulation option were passed, Sunday would continue to be maintained in a special way and the specialness that all of us crave would be preserved.
Whatever we do by way of reform to this outdated and anomalous law, we should ensure that it is durable. The one thing that we do not wish to see coming back next year is a shopping hours reform Bill. That is what will happen if we end up with a restrictive and regulatory option such as that proposed by the KSS campaign. If, as I suspect, total deregulation does not gain favour with the Committee, I hope that it will give massive support to the alternative compromise SHRC proposal.

Mr. Soley: I intend to be brief and speak in support of the SHRC position, and bring in a couple of new points, which might seem a little difficult after so much time. I shall touch equally briefly on a couple of points that have already been mentioned.
The importance of the employee's rights has been mentioned. I would vote against legislation if I thought that it was against those rights. As the main trade unions, including one of which I am a member, have concluded that the compromise proposal is in the best interests of their members, I am not in the business of telling them to go back and tell their members that they are wrong. Nor am I in the business of telling them to go back and renegotiate. That is an important point, and so far as I am concerned, it deals with that issue.
My second point is about small shops. Again, if I felt that a measure that extended shopping hours would cripple small shops, I would be tempted to vote against it. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Bench to listen to me. I do not want to take too many interventions, but when they have heard what I have to say, one of them may wish to intervene and, if so, I shall consider giving way.
The important point to remember about the regrettable decline of small shops is that it started long before the Sunday trading issue. It is the result of the growth in supermarkets and large stores. In the debate, hon. Members have blamed the growth of the great stores for closing the small shops and said that if they open for another day, yet more small shops will close. That theory is not correct and it is not supported by the experience in my area or by a look at the types of shopping.
9.30 pm
When people go to the large superstores, particularly those out of town, they tend to do a different type of shopping from the shopping they do at local shops. They stock up for a week, 10 days or two weeks; they buy in bulk and it does not matter what day of the week they do that. If one went on the Wednesday because the shop was closed on a Thursday, Sunday opening would not make much difference to the pattern. It makes little odds what the day is. If I cannot go on a Sunday now, I will go on a Monday, but if I can go on a Sunday, I will not go on a Monday.
If hon. Members really believe that Sunday opening will lead to the decline of the small shop, they should listen to my experience. Only a couple of years ago a couple of large stores—both Sainsbury—opened in my area within about five miles of each other with my main patch,

Shepherd's Bush, right in between them. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if I could have a little less noise around me.
There should have been a decline in the number of small shops in the area as a result of those two stores opening, but in fact there was probably a marginal increase, although not one connected with Sunday shopping. People go to the large shops on Sunday but down the end of the road for local shopping. That is what I do where I live in Shepherd's Bush. f I want five, six or 10 items, I will go down the road for them, even on a Sunday, when I go to my local Asian shops, whose owners are not in favour of the KSS option, or at least have not told me that they are. On the other hand, if I want to stock up for a week or two, I go to the nearby Sainsbury store, or whatever.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Soley: I will give way, but I do not want to give way too often because of the lack of time.

Mr. Gapes: I thank my hon. Friend. Is he arguing that there is a limitless increase in the amount of goods that will be bought in the shops to which he is referring? Is there not a finite amount of shopping that will be done, and if that amount is spread over a longer time, will not that result in higher overheads and other costs?

Mr. Soley: I would like to think that it was as simple as that, but as is so often the case, there are variables. My hon. Friend has not taken into account the changed nature of shopping. If he was right in his argument, the situation in Scotland would have changed much more drastically. However, the argument that Scotland is different does not wash. I lived in Scotland for a number of years and I know that there is not much difference between the areas around Glasgow and Edinburgh and those around London. There is a far greater difference between living in London and living in the southern rural areas. One must also take into account the change in shopping patterns, which is vital.
Hon. Members have spoken about family life. It is hard to determine what improves or makes worse family life in an issue like this. The majority of shoppers are women. That is changing, I am pleased to say, but it is still true. I would like to think that hon. Members, like me, have gone shopping with young children. Those who have will know that going to shops with young children on one's own is a difficult job.
It is far better to go to the shops with another person. One of the advantages to the family, and to the mother, of shopping on a weekend, whether it is a Saturday or Sunday, is that there is partnership of people to shop and look after children. Another equally important option, which I employ, is to share the child care—either stay at home with the children while the other partner goes shopping, or vice versa. It is therefore not an argument to say that Sunday trading undermines family life. There is considerable evidence that it makes family life much easier and that it certainly makes the woman's role much easier.
The majority of representations that I have received from women are in favour of that sort of flexibility.
We must also be careful about the impact of technological change. Superstores grew in number because with the growing availability of cars and fridge freezers people were able to travel to those stores and stock up for a week or more.


We must also consider another imminent situation in which people will sit in front of their television sets and order goods by telephone. If we are to go down that road in a few years, we must be clear about whether that will be allowed to happen on a Sunday. Technology drives social change. Whether that change is the growth of superstores or the ability to shop by telephone and television is marginal to the issue before us. However, it is critical if we kid ourselves that we can stand in the way of that social change.
We must ensure that we protect certain values and rights. We must protect the rights of the employees to the satisfaction of the trade unions involved and ensure that we do not introduce anything that is destructive of family life—there are some advantages. Logically, to protect small shops, the big shops would have to close. That would alow growth in the small shops, but apparently nobody is arguing for that.
The SHRC approach is the best option, not because it is perfect but because the others do not bear the analysis which is sometimes applied.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) always makes a thoughtful and interesting speech, as he has done tonight, although I could not follow his logic or his argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), who had hoped to participate in the debate, a few moments ago handed me an interesting quotation of the words of an eminent neurologist, Dr. James Brown. He said:
We doctors, in the treatment of nervous diseases, are compelled to prescribe periods of rest. Some of these periods are, I think, only Sundays in arrears.
It is an interesting observation from a medical man. I stand full square behind the special nature of Sundays. It is not a question of whether one goes to church; it is a question of a day when the tempo of life is slower, when the family can be together more and when it is different from the rest of the week.
I have always opposed the deregulation of Sunday trading because I am completely against a high-street Sunday. I do not want Saturday to be replicated the day after and if there is total deregulation through either of the deregulation options before the Committee, Sundays will certainly be a second Saturday. I also oppose the deregulation of Sunday trading because I strongly believe in the value of small shops. Members of Parliament have a prime duty to those who are most vulnerable in society. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) who talked about the rich and powerful. We do not have to worry about the rich and the powerful a great deal. As we have seen in recent years, the law has been flagrantly violated by those who ought to know better. We are concerned with protecting those who are less able to protect themselves—small shop keepers, workers in shops and those who live in modest houses who will suffer the greatest disruption from the clutter and bustle of a high-street Sunday.
Let us consider those three categories one at a time, beginning with the small shopkeeper. I am afraid that I was not convinced by what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. I believe that they would suffer in one of two ways—they would be driven out of business or forced to open on Sundays and people who work all around the clock would lose the little rest and recreation that they sometimes have.
I was much influenced by a letter that I received from the National Organisation of Asian Businesses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is a member of its advisory board. I fully respect her position but it is certainly not in accord with that of the organisation which urges us to support the RSAR initiative, allowing shops of up to 3,000 sq ft to remain open on Sundays.
Small shops perform a significant and signal service in rural areas such as mine, where they are often the centre of the community where people gather, and in urban and suburban areas where they are the corner shops. They would all be endangered by the unrestricted Sunday opening of the large shops. There is no doubt about that.
The second category concerns those who work in the shops. I am especially worried about the total inadequacy of the well-meant provisions in the Bill which are supposed to give some protection. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to quote a contract circulating in the Wolverhampton area. I received a very sad letter from a lady who received a copy of that contract. She drew my attention to a clause in the contract which states:
If it is decided that your branch will trade on a Sunday or a Bank holiday, you may be asked to work on these days. Your employment is subject to your full agreement to this condition of employment.
What option does the ordinary shop worker have if there is unrestricted Sunday trading? As has already been said, if Sunday ceases to be special, there is not much of a logical case for arguing for double time or overtime, so shop workers will suffer whatever happens.
The third group of small people are those who live in modest terraced houses and other accommodation in or near the centres of towns and cities. Their lives will be disrupted by the clutter and clatter of the commercial Sunday. When I listen to debates on this topic, I often think of Oscar Wilde's words about people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. We have a duty to know the value of Sunday, and we should not allow it to be driven out of our heads by purely commercial instincts.
I urge all hon. Members to realise that if we abolish the special nature of Sunday, we cannot call it back—it will be gone for ever. If we accept the Keep Sunday Special option, linked with what I call the Marks and Spencer option—meaning that shops would be allowed to open for the four Sundays before Christmas—we could amend and adjust it to meet changing demands. Total deregulation, however, would mean the removal of all restrictions to the disadvantage of everyone.
I end with two examples to support my argument. The first involves the effect of total deregulation on many of our town centres and cities. I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members know Dudley in the west midlands, which has become a ghost town since the opening of the Merry Hill shopping centre. Such competition sucks the life out of a town—the hoardings go up, the criminals come in, and the town is dehumanised. I believe strongly that we would be doing a great disservice if we allowed that to happen everywhere, which would be the result of total deregulation.
Secondly, I think that it was the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who mentioned Good Friday. Many hon. Members must remember when commerce stopped on Good Friday. It was an extra day of the year—another Sunday, if you like—when people could


sit back; whether or not they went to church, it was a day of rest and recreation. For the more serious people it was a day of contemplation; and for the even more serious it was a day of contemplation about the most serious thing in their lives.
Good Friday is now another commercial day. One can drive down the main streets of any of our towns and cities, in almost any part of the country, and the cash tills are ringing and the queues are there. The rest, the recreation and the opportunity for contemplation has gone for ever. If we move along that road tonight, we will condemn every Sunday to go the way that Good Friday has gone in so many parts of the world.
I urge all right hon. and hon. Members not to throw away something that is priceless and beyond recall. The special character of Sunday is priceless. If it goes tonight it will be beyond recall.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I apologise for missing the earlier parts of the debate but I was delayed by traffic.
I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who made telling points. I may be in danger of going over old ground, so I will try to keep my remarks concise and deal with some of the points that I have heard.
We have heard some specious arguments tonight. For example, according to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the more people break a law the less likelihood there is of that law being upheld and therefore we must change it. It is a strange argument. Perhaps I am more aware of that because I come from Northern Ireland.
I did not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). In this debate at least, my experience has been that trade union officials—having entered into agreement with some of the bigger stores to collect dues—have been protecting their jobs rather than those of some of their members.
The debate is about whether we go for further materialism or stand for other values. I declare my interest without any ambiguity as an ordained minister of the word and sacraments. We are living in a materialistic society. Reference has been made to the Jews, Moslems and Christians, and we all accept the principle that one day in seven must be kept different. In other countries, where the predominant religion may be Jewish or Moslem, their specific day is different. Because of our heritage, traditionally our's is the first day of the week.
When people were arguing for Sunday football and Sunday sport some years ago, one of the arguments was, "We must play on Sunday because Saturday is the only day that we can go shopping with our wives." When the premier league was introduced and the main matches played on a Sunday were televised, it was amazing how many found that they could play football on a Saturday because they were not getting the gates on a Sunday. That reflects the materialistic spirit that is passing through our world.
Reference was made to Germany and France. It is not surprising that those who have been leading the advance to

totally deregulate Sunday trading in this country are now beginning to spread their wings and seeking to influence thinking in France and Germany.
The Government are calling us back to basics. Tonight is an opportunity to get back to the basics of the decalogue and to remember that the fourth commandment is one of the fundamental basics that gives us a day of rest, when we can recycle ourselves and opt for values that are more important than profits.

Mr. John Marshall: Having listened to every speech, I shall resist the temptation to comment on all but one—that of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), whose integrity, principles and commitment to Christianity we all accept, but some of whose conclusions are not acceptable to me.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's kind comments about the Jewish community, and his observation that that community honours Shebat. I suppose that I represent more orthodox members of the Jewish community than any other Member of Parliament. When I go around Hendon on a Saturday, I can guarantee that orthodox Jewish families will also be walking around my constituency. They do not do so because there is any lack of temptation. Nearly all the shops in Golders Green open on Saturdays, as do virtually all the shops in Hendon. Those families could go to the shops at Brent Cross, or to the cinema, but they do not do so for reasons of conviction—and I believe that Sunday will remain special through conviction rather than legislative fiat.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I was trying to make a point about the value of family life. I am certain that, if deregulation were introduced—either immediately or by stages—it would impose an undesirable additional pressure on the family. In many cases, a key member of the family would not be present on that one day.

Mr. Marshall: There is no reason why family life should be destroyed by partial deregulation, as recommended by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Over the past few weeks, I have visited a number of supermarkets and have noted the instances in which father, mother and children go shopping together.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of the way in which seven-day trading can aid family life. I asked a gentleman of about 50 who was shopping in Asda, "Why are you shopping today?" He replied, "I shop for myself on Saturdays, and on Sundays I take my elderly mother out in the car so that she and I can shop together. That is the only way in which she can visit the supermarket: it is open on Sundays, and I can go with her and help." That is family life—a son helping his elderly mother. It would stop if supermarkets closed on Sundays.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is not one of the greatest joys of childhood sitting on a supermarket trolley while the parents do the shopping?

Mr. Marshall: I went to a supermarket with my children last weekend—(Interruption.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members would listen to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Marshall: My children thoroughly enjoyed the experience, although I did not enjoy paying for their extravagances; they thought that I should buy whatever they selected.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that the supermarkets had been breaking the law. Every shop that has opened on Sunday has been breaking the law for generations: every shop that has sold a bag of sugar or Tetley tea bags—Tetley's beer can be sold on Sundays, but the tea bags cannot—or a can of beans has broken the law. Every shop that would benefit from the amendment supported by the hon. Member for Swansea, East has been breaking the law. The argument that lawbreakers must not be allowed to benefit is an argument for voting for none of the amendments.
Over the past few weeks, an unholy alliance—a marriage of convenience—has been created between the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR campaigns. It should be remembered that the two campaigns came together only because they knew that individually they could not get their proposals through the House of Commons. It is the most disgracefully restrictive and protectionist group of retailers imaginable.
Waitrose does not want to open Sundays. I would not force Waitrose to do so, but why should it stop Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury opening on Sunday? Marks and Spencer wants to open only four Sundays a year. Why should it prevent British Home Stores or Woolworth opening the other 48 Sundays? Marks and Spencer wants to deny consumer choice and to restrict competition. Marks and Spencer wrongly claims that it will be forced to open on Sundays if the SHRC option succeeds. One only has to look at the experience of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee to realise that if shops were allowed to open on Sundays in England, Marks and Spencer would not be forced to do so and would not do so most Sundays.
Keep Sunday Special's decision to get into bed with the RSAR was completely unprincipled. When we debated the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) earlier this year, one understood that the hon. Gentleman was advancing the principle of no trading on Sundays by the big boys. We no longer have that principle, but we are told that there should be no trading except on four Sundays. Why four and not six, eight or 10? No one has said. We have been told that shops should only trade on the four Sundays before Christmas, and see the KSS campaign supporting the commercialisation of Christmas. I find that completely—(Interruption.]

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is difficult to hear the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), and a rumour that is circulating is adding to the noise. The rumour is that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has withdrawn his amendment, which would change the voting pattern. If that rumour is true, right hon. and hon. Members should know before they flood out of here and into the wrong Lobby.

The Chairman: It is not for the Chair to listen to any rumour that may be circulating. If any right hon. or hon. Member wants to withdraw an amendment at any time, it is up to him to do so. At this point, the Committee is debating amendment No. 35 and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has the Floor.

Mr. Marshall: Much of the debate has been muddied by discussion of the small shopkeeper. It is amusing to see Marks and Spencer, which has been competing against small shopkeepers for generations, suddenly come along and say, "We are terribly concerned about the small corner shop." Marks and Spencer could not care two hoots. It is amusing also that Iceland, which has been trying to win business from the small corner shop, says, "Vote for our option to help the small corner shop." It would be more honest of Iceland to say, "Vote for our option to benefit Iceland"—because that is what it seeks to do.
The dramatic decline in the number of small shops in the 1980s had nothing to do with Sunday opening by supermarkets, because they did not open on Sundays then. It all had to do with a changing pattern of retailing, which presented small shops with intense competition, not from supermarkets but from petrol stations.
The test is simple. What would benefit the consumer, what do workers want and what do local authorities, which will have to enforce any change in the law, want? Local authorities prefer deregulation. They consider the SHRC option to be tolerable and the KSS-RSAR option to be intolerable, because it is riddled with illogical concepts.
This evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, "Vote for the KSS option so that you can buy antiques in a DIY store on Sunday." Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the public would go to B & Q to buy a George IV desk? What arrant nonsense. How out of touch is my right hon. Friend.
The consumer enjoys Sunday shopping. Several million people shop on a Sunday. One of the reasons they do so is that supermarkets give good value. The supporters of KSS and RSAR want to keep convenience stores open. I went to a convenience store and a supermarket on a Sunday. In the convenience store, I had to pay 38p for a pint of milk. In the supermarket, the cost was 25p. Why should the pensioners of Hendon be prevented from paying low prices for their milk, bread and Nescafe? The supporters of KSS want to stop the pensioners, the low-paid and those who are not well off in my constituency from enjoying the benefits of cheap prices on Sunday. There is nothing moral about Labour Members voting to impose higher prices on my constituents.

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Sunday Trading Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Sunday Trading Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Marshall: The final point to remember is what the workers want. Thousands of workers want to work on a Sunday. Members of USDAW want to work on a Sunday. If people want to work on a Sunday, they should be free to do so. The way to make them free to do so is by voting for the Shopping Hours Reform Council option this evening.

Sir Peter Emery: With the leave of the Committee, may I say that I have listened to the whole debate. Having been told by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that they like my amendment second, it seems that I can save a vote by withdrawing my amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'sections' in line 7.—[Mr. Howard.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 174, Noes 404.

Division No. 15]
[10.02 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Gardiner sir George


Arbuthnot, James
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Garnier, Edward


Ashby, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Aspinwall, Jack
Gill, Christopher


Atkins, Robert
Gillan, Cheryl


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Baldry, Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gorst, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Conway, Derek
Jenkin, Bernard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Key, Robert


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knox, Sir David


Dicks, Terry
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan, Alan
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lightbown, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John





MacKay, Andrew
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Maxton, John
Sykes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Rendel, David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Tim Devlin and


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. James Couchman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Body, Sir Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene
Booth, Hartley


Ainger, Nick
Boswell, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bowden, Andrew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bowis, John


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Bradley, Keith


Ancram, Michael
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brazier, Julian


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Austin-Walker, John
Burns, Simon


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burt, Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Butterfill, John


Barron, Kevin
Byers, Stephen


Bates, Michael
Caborn, Richard


Batiste, Spencer
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beggs, Roy
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cann, Jamie


Bell, Stuart
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cash, William


Benton, Joe
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Chapman, Sydney


Berry, Dr. Roger
Clapham, Michael


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blair, Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Blunkett, David
Clelland, David


Boateng, Paul
Coffey, Ann






Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Connarty, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Gunnell, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hague, William


Corbett, Robin
Hain, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hall, Mike


Cormack, Patrick
Hannam, Sir John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hanson, David


Cousins, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Cox, Tom
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cran, James
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cryer, Bob
Harris, David


Cummings, John
Heald, Oliver


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hinchliffe, David


Dafis, Cynog
Hoey, Kate


Darling, Alistair
Home Robertson, John


Davidson, Ian
Hood, Jimmy


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hordern, Rt Hon sir Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Howell, sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Day, Stephen
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Denham, John
Hoyle, Doug


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dixon, Don
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Dover, Den
Hutton, John


Dowd, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ingram, Adam


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jack, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dykes, Hugh
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Jamieson David


Eastham, Ken
Janner, Greville


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Enright, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Etherington, Bill
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Evennett, David
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Fatchett, Derek
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Faulds, Andrew
Jowell, Tessa


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Keen, Alan


Fishburn, Dudley
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Flynn, Paul
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Forman, Nigel
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Khabra, Piara S.


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kilfedder, Sir James


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foulkes, George
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fraser, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


French, Douglas
Knapman, Roger


Fry, Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Galbraith, Sam
Leigh, Edward


Gale, Roger
Leighton, Ron


Gallie, Phil
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gapes, Mike
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Garrett, John
Lewis, Terry


George, Bruce
Litherland, Robert


Gerrard, Neil
Livingstone, ken


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Godsiff, Roger
Llwyd, Elfyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lord, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Loyden, Eddie


Gordon, Mildred
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gould, Bryan
McAllion, John


Graham, Thomas
McAvoy, Thomas


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
McCrea, Rev William


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mc Fall, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
McKelvey, William


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew





Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


McMaster, Gordon
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McNamara, Kevin
Rogers, Allan


McWilliam, John
Rooker, Jeff


Madden, Max
Rooney, Terry


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madel, David
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Maginnis, Ken
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Mandelson, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Mans, Keith
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mates, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Meale, Alan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Merchant, Piers
Shore, Rt Hon peter


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Simpson, Alan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mills, Iain
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Moate, Sir Roger
Snape, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Spencer, Sir Derek


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spink, Dr Robert


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spring, Richard


Mowlam, Marjorie
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mudie, George
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mullin, Chris
Steen, Anthony


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stephen, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevenson, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Streeter, Gary


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Sumberg, David


O'Hara, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Olner, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Thomason, Roy


Parry, Robert
Thomason, Jack (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Tipping, Paddy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tredinnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Trimble, David


Pickthall, Colin
Tyler, Paul


Pike, Peter L.
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pope, Greg
Vaz, Keith


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Powell, William (Corby)
Wallace, James


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Waller, Gary


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Joan


Prescott, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Waterson, Nigel


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike


Radice, Giles
Wicks, Malcolm


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Wilkinson, John


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Robathan, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winnick, David


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)






Wise, Audrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wolfson, Mark



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Dr Tony
Mr. Peter Luff and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'Schedules' in line 10.—[Mr. Howard.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Dr. John G. Blackburn: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am alarmed that a period of four minutes elapsed from your instruction to lock the doors and the door of the No Lobby being closed. As a result, I believe that, democratically, those voting in the Aye Lobby have an unfair advantage.

The Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had a stopwatch with him, but it was reported to me that the door was not locked. I therefore gave instructions for it to be locked. I shall await the result of the vote before deciding whether to take any action.
Later—

The Chairman: In the light of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), I am not satisfied with the result of the vote; it will therefore take place again. May I ask for particular care from the Serjeant so that, when I call out "Lock the doors", the doors are locked immediately?

The Committee having divided: Ayes 286, Noes 304.

Division No. 16]
10.31 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burt, Alistair


Adams, Mrs Irene
Butterfill, John


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Alton, David
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Amess, David
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cann, Jamie


Armstrong, Hilary
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bates, Michael
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beggs, Roy
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Stuart
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Bob


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cummings, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dafis, Cynog


Blunkett, David
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Booth, Hartley
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Denham, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don


Brazier, Julian
Dobson, Frank


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Donohoe, Brian H.


Burns, Simon
Dover, Den





Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Llwyd, Elfyn


Enright, Derek
Lord, Michael


Etherington, Bill
Loyden, Eddie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McAllion, John


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McAvoy, Thomas


Evennett, David
McCrea, Rev William


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclennan, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Foulkes, George
McNamara, Kevin


Fraser, John
McWilliam, John


Galbraith, Sam
Madden, Max


Gale, Roger
Maginnis, Ken


Gapes, Mike
Mans, Keith


Garrett, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Mates, Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Meacher, Michael


Gordon, Mildred
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grocott, Bruce
Moate, Sir Roger


Grylls, Sir Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hague, William
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hain, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hannam, Sir John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hardy, Peter
Mudie, George


Hargreaves, Andrew
Mullin, Chris


Harris, David
Murphy, paul


Heald, Oliver
Neubert, Sir Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hinchliffe, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hoey, Kate
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hood, Jimmy
Olner, William


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Illsley, Eric
Pawsey, James


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pickthall, colin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pike, Peter L.


Jessel, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Redmond, Martin


Keen, Alan
Robathan, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Sedgemore, Brain


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sheerman, Barry


Leigh, Edward
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Short, Clare






Simpson, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Skinner, Dennis
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wallace, James


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Joan


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Spearing, Nigel
Waterson, Nigel


Spellar, John
Watson, Mike


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wicks, Malcolm


Spink, Dr Robert
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Streeter, Gary
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sumberg, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wright, Dr Tony


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tipping, Paddy



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trimble, David
Mr. Peter Luff and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Dennis Turner.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Congdon, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aspinwall, Jack
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkins, Robert
Darling, Alistair


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dewar, Donald


Batiste, Spencer
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Dicks, Terry


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Stephen


Betts, Clive
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blair, Tony
Dowd, Jim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Boyes, Roland
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bradley, Keith
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brandreth, Gyles
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burden, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Carrington, Matthew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Cash, William
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Chapman, Sydney
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Clappison, James
French, Douglas


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fry, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gallie, Phil


Clelland, David
Gardiner, Sir George


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Coe, Sebastian
Garnier, Edward


Coffey, Ann
Gerrard, Neil


Colvin, Michael
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John





Gill, Christopher
Maxton, John


Gillan, Cheryl
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Milburn, Alan


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Miller, Andrew


Gorst, John
Milligan, Stephen


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Gunnell, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morley, Elliot


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hendry, Charles
O'Hara, Edward


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Page, Richard


Hoon, Geoffrey
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pickles, Eric


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, Rt hon John


Janner, Greville
Rendel, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Richards, Rod


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jowell, Tessa
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knox, Sir David
Rooker, Jeff


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowlands, Ted


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ruddock, Joan


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sackville, Tom


Legg, Barry
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leighton, Ron
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shore, Rt hon Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Litherland, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Soames, Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Speed, Sir Keith


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Spring, Richard


Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Maitland, Lady Olga
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mandelson, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Marlow, Tony
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stevenson, George


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan






Strang, Dr. Gavin
Tracey, Richard


Sweeney, Walter
Tredinnick, David


Sykes, John
Trend, Michael


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Trotter, Neville


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Temple-Morris, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Thomason, Roy
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Walden, George


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Thurnham, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Waller, Gary





Ward, John
Wilshire, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wilson, Brian


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Worthington, Tony


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Willetts, David
Mrs. Angela Knight.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'Schedules' in line 12—[Mr. Howard.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 333, Noes 258.

Division No. 17]
[10.45 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aitken, Jonathan
Darling, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ancram, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dewar, Donald


Arbuthnot, James
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dicks, Terry


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Robert
Dowd, Jim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Austin-Walker, John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Tim


Barron, Kevin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Betts, Clive
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blair, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Fisher, Mark


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Flynn, Paul


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyes, Roland
Forth, Eric


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fry, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gallie, Phil


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gerrard, Neil


Budgen, Nicholas
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Burden, Richard
Gill, Christopher


Butcher, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Canavan, Dennis
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gould, Bryan


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Rt hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harris, David


Coe, Sebastian
Haselhurst, Alan


Coffey, Ann
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Home Robertson, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hoon, Geoffrey





Horam, John
Needham, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
O'Neill, Martin


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunter, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Page, Richard


Hutton, John
Paice, James


Ingram, Adam
Patnick, Irvine


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jamieson, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Janner, Greville
Pickles, Eric


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jowell, Tessa
Powell, William (Corby)


Key, Robert
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Radice, Giles


Kirkwood, Archy
Rathbone, Tim


Knapman, Roger
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Richards, Rod


Knox, Sir David
Riddick, Graham


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n s)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Legg, Barry
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Leighton, Ron
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lidington, David
Ruddock, Joan


Lightbown, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Litherland, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sedgemore, Brian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacKay, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McKelvey, William
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David
Shore, Rt Hon peter


McLeish, Henry
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soley, Clive


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mandelson, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marlow, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Meale, Alan
Stern, Michael


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Milligan, Stephen
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomason, Roy


Morley, Elliot
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Thurnham, Peter






Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Willetts, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilshire, David


Tyler, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wise, Audrey


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Worthington, Tony


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ward, John



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. James Couchman and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Bernard Jenkin.


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Day, Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Denham John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dixon, Don


Alton, David
Dobson, Frank


Amess, David
Donohoe, Brian H.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Enright, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Etherington, Bill


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evennett, David


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fatchett, Derek


Benton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blunkett, David
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Galbraith, Sam


Bowden, Andrew
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gapes, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John


Burt, Alistair
George, Bruce


Butterfill, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grant Sir A (Cambs SW)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hague, William


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Hall, mike


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hannam, Sir John


Corbett, Robin
Hanson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Hargreaves, Andrew


Corston, Ms Jean
Heald, Oliver


Cousins, Jim
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hoey, Kate


Cummings, John
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dafis, Cynog
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Illsley, Eric





Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jessel, Toby
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Prescott, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Redmond, Martin


Keen, Alan
Rendel, David


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rogers, Allan


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Sheerman, Barry


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leigh, Edward
Short, Clare


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Simpson, Alan


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lord, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Spellar, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Spencer, Sir Derek


McCrea, Rev William
Spink, Dr Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Straw, Jack


McFall, John
Streeter, Gary


Maclennan, Robert
Sumberg, David


McMaster, Gordon
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Trimble, David


Michael, Alun
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wallace, James


Moate, Sir Roger
Walley, Joan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Waterson, Nigel


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Neubert, Sir Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Olner, William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wolfson, Mark


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wright, Dr Tony


Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Peter Luff and


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Pickthall, Colin

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairman: I shall now put the consequential amendments.
Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'such' to end of line 17 and insert
'day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (in this section referred to as "the appointed day")'.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 339, Noes 219.

Division No. 18]
[10.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aitken, Jonathan
Darling, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allen, Graham
Devlin, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dowd, Jim


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan, Alan


Atkins, Robert
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dunn, Bob


Austin-Walker, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Eagle, Ms Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Barron, Kevin
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Betts, Clive
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blair, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Fisher, Mark


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Flynn, Paul


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bradley, Keith
Forth, Eric


Brandreth, Gyles
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fry, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garnier, Edward


Budgen, Nicholas
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Burt, Alistair
Gill, Christopher


Butcher, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Goodland, Rt hon Alastair


Canavan, Dennis
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cash, William
Gunnell, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harris, David


Coe, Sebastian
Haselhurst, Alan


Coffey, Ann
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Horam, John





Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Nelson, Anthony


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hoyle, Doug
Nicholls, Patrick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Norris, Steve


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
O'Neill, Martin


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensborne)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ottaway, Richard


Hutton, John
Page, Richard


Ingram, Adam
Paice, James


Jack, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Janner, Greville
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Bernard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Pickles, Eric


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Tessa
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Key, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Knapman, Roger
Radice, Giles


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Knox, Sir David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Richards, Rod


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Riddick, Graham


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Legg, Barry
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Leigh, Edward
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Leighton, Ron
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lidington, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lightbown, David
Ruddock, Joan


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Litherland, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sackville, Tom


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacKay, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McKelvey, William
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McWilliam, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Soley, Clive


Malone, Gerald
Speed, Sir Keith


Mandelson, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Meale, Alan
Stern, Michael


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Milligan, Stephen
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Sweeney, Walter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sykes, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter






Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Whittingdale, John


Tracey, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wise, Audrey


Tyler, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Timothy Wood, and


Ward, John
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Denham, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ainger, Nick
Dixon, Don


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dobson, Frank


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Alton, David
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashton, Joe
Enright, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bayley, Hugh
Fatchett, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bendall, Vivian
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
French, Douglas


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
Garrett, John


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Berry, Dr. Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blunkett, David
Gordon, Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Butterfill, John
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hannam, Sir John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Higgins, Rt hon Sir Terence L.


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hinchliffe, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby


Corston, Ms Jean
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dafis, Cynog
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Day, Stephen
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)





Khabra, Piara S.
Purchase, Ken


Kilfedder, Sir James
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Raynsford, Nick


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Redmond, Martin


Lewis, Terry
Robathan, Andrew


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rogers, Allan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lord, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCrea, Rev William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Maginnis, Ken
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Tipping, Paddy


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Trimble, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mudie, George
Wareing, Robert N


Mullin, Chris
Watson, Mike


Murphy, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Olner, William
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Parry, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Patchett, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Pawsey, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. Peter Luff and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'sections'.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 332, Noes 192.

Division No. 19]
[11.11 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aitken, Jonathan
Barron, Kevin


Alexander, Richard
Bates, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Batiste, Spencer


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ancram, Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Betts, Clive


Arbuthnot, James
Blair, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, peter (Eltham)


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowis, John


Austin-Walker, John
Boyes, Roland


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bradley, Keith


Baldry, Tony
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bright, Graham






Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gillan, Cheryl


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hague, William


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hendry, Charles


Clelland, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hoyle, Doug


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dorrell, Stephen
Hutton, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Ingram, Adam


Dowd, Jim
Jack, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Jamieson, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Janner, Greville


Dunn, Bob
Jenkin, Bernard


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Eggar, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jowell, Tessa


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Key, Robert


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knapman, Roger


Evennett, David
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Faber, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Fabricant, Michael
Knox, Sir David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fishburn, Dudley
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fisher, Mark
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Flynn, Paul
Legg, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leighton, Ron


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lidington, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lightbown, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Litherland, Robert


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gallie, Phil
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gardiner, Sir George
Mackay, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McKelvey, William


Garnier, Edward
Maclean, David


Garrard, Neil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McNamara, Kevin





McWilliam, John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Shaw, David (Dover)


Madel, David
Shaw, sir Giles (Pudsey)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Major, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malone, Gerald
Shore, Rt hon Peter


Mendelson, Peter
Sims, Roger


Mans, Keith
Skeet, sir Trevor


Marland, Paul
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marlow, Tony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Soames, Nicholas


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Soley, Clive


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speed, Sir Keith


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maxton, John
Spicer Sir James (W Dorset)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Meale, Alan
Sproat, Iain


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Milligan, Stephen
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stephen, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Allan


Moss, Malcolm
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mowlam, Marjorie
Streeter, Gary


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Sweeney, Walter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sykes, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Steve
Thomason, Roy


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Thompson, sir Donald (C'er V)


O'Hara, Edward
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


O'Neill, Martin
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trend, Michael


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pickles, Eric
Tyler, Paul


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Waller, Gary


Radice, Giles
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wise, Audrey


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ruddock, Joan



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Armstrong, Hilary


Ainger, Nick
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Barnes, Harry


Alton, David
Battle, John


Amess, David
Bayley, Hugh






Beggs, Roy
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Jessel, Toby


Bell, Stuart
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Benton, Joe
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Bermingham, Gerald
Keen, Alan


Berry, Dr. Roger
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Blunkett, David
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Boateng, Paul
Khabra, Piara S.


Bowden, Andrew
Kilfedder, Sir James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Butterfill, John
Lewis, Terry


Byers, Stephen
Livingstone, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Lord, Michael


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cam, Jamie
McAllion, John


Clapham, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McCrea, Rev William


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Macdonald, Calum


Cohen, Harry
McFall, John


Connarty, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McMaster, Gordon


Corbett, Robin
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maginnis, Ken


Cormack, Patrick
Martlew, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Meacher, Michael


Cousins, Jim
Michael, Alun


Cox, Tom
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cryer, Bob
Mills, Iain


Cummings, John
Moate, Sir Roger


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Molyneaux, Rt hon James


Dafis, Cynog
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Davidson, Ian
Mudie, George


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Murphy, Paul


Day, Stephen
Oaxes, Rt Hon Gordon


Denham, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Dixon, Don
Olner, William


Donohoe, Brian H.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dover, Den
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pawsey, James


Etherington, Bill
Pendry, Tom


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Pickthall, Colin


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Faulds, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Purchase, Ken


French, Douglas
Randall, Stuart


Gapes, Mike
Raynsford, Nick


Garrett, John
Redmond, Martin


George, Bruce
Robathan, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gordon, Mildred
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Graham, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Simpson, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hain, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hall, Mike
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hanson, David
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Hargreaves, Andrew
Spellar, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Spink, Dr Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Tapsell, sir Peter


Hoey, Kate
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm





Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Trimble, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walley, Joan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wright, Dr Tony


Wareing, Robert N
Young David (Bolton SE)


Watson, Mike



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr, Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 1, leave out lines 21 to 23.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 320, Noes 185.

Division No. 20]
[11.23 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Allen, Graham
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ancram, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ashby, David
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Atkins, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Devlin, Tim


Austin-Walker, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Betts, Clive
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blair, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boyes, Roland
Evennett, David


Bradley, Keith
Faber, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Graham
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Flynn, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burden, Richard
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butler, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Canavan, Dennis
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fry, Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Cash, William
Gardiner, Sir George


Chapman, Sydney
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gill, Christopher


Clelland, David
Gillan, Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Coe, Sebastian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Coffey, Ann
Gorman, Mrs Teresa






Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Meale, Alan


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Milburn, Alan


Gunnell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hague, William
Milligan, Stephen


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Morley, Elliot


Hawkins, Nick
Moss, Malcolm


Hawksley, Warren
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hayes, Jerry
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hendry, Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
O'Hara, Edward


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Horam, John
Onslow, Rt hon Sir Cranley


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillp


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Paice, James


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Radice, Giles


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jamieson, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Janner, Greville
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rooker, Jeff


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knox, Sir David
Ruddock, Joan


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leighton, Ron
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lidington, David
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfied)


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Maclean, David
Speed, Sir Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spring, Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mandelson, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mans, Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevenson, George





Stewart, Allan
Walden, George


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thomason, Roy
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thurnham, Peter
Willetts, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilshire, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wise, Audrey


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Tredinnick, David
Worthington, Tony


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Twinn, Dr Ian



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainger, Nick
Eastham, Ken


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Etherington, Bill


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Amess, David
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Hilary
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barnes, Harry
French, Douglas


Battle, John
Gapes, Mike


Bayley, Hugh
Garrett, John


Beggs, Roy
George, Bruce


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gordon, Mildred


Bendall, Vivian
Graham, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hall, Mike


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hanson, David


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Hargreaves, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Byers, Stephen
Hoey, Kate


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corston, Ms Jean
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cox, Tom
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Cryer, Bob
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cummings, John
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dafis, Cynog
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lewis, Terry


Day, Stephen
Livingstone, Ken


Denham, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dobson, Frank
Lord, Michael


Donohoe, Brian H.
Loyden, Eddie


Dover, Den
Lynne, Ms Liz






McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCrea, Rev William
Simpson, Alan


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McMaster, Gordon
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Maginnis, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Meacher, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Michael, Alun
Tapsell, sir Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mudie, George
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Paul
Trimble, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


Olner, William
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike


Pendry, Tom
Wicks, Malcolm


Pickthall, Colin
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pike, Peter L.
Wigley, Dafydd


Porter, David (Waveney)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Purchase, Ken
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Randall, Stuart
Wright, Dr Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Redmond, Martin



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Eric Ilsley and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Question accordingly agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Debate on clause or schedule standing part), That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 335, Noes 175.

Division No. 21]
[11.35 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Blair, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Booth, Hartley


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boswell, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Allen, Graham
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Ancram, Michael
Bowis, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boyes, Roland


Arbuthnot, James
Bradley, Keith


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Baldry, Tony
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burden, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Peter


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Canavan, Dennis


Betts, Clive
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)





Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Harman, Ms Harriet


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clelland, David
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Coffey, Ann
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Start'rd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Darling, Alistair
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hutton, John


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jamieson, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Jowell, Tessa


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knox, Sir David


Faber, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fabricant, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Fisher, Mark
Leighton, Ron


Flynn, Paul
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mackay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Major, Rt Hon John


Gerrard, Neil
Malone, Gerald


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mandelson, Peter


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Maxton, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gunnell, John
Meale, Alan


Hague, William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Milburn, Alan






Miller, Andrew
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Milligan, Stephen
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Iain
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Speed, Sir Keith


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spink, Dr Robert


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spring Richard


Morley, Elliot
Sproat, Iain


Moss, Malcolm
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Steinberg, Gerry


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stephen, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stevenson, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Allan


Norris, Steve
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Streeter, Gary


O'Hara, Edward
Sumberg, David


O'Neill, Martin
Sweeney, Walter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sykes, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thomason, Roy


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pickles, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Pope, Greg
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tredinnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Trend, Michael


Radice, Giles
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Rendel, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Richards, Rod
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Ward, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Ray


Rooker, Jeff
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Widdecombe, Ann


Ruddock, Joan
Wilkinson, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Willetts, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Tom
Wise, Audrey


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Sedgemore, Brian
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Worthington, Tony


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Michael Brown.


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beggs, Roy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Beith, Rt Hon A.J.


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Bennett, Andrew F.


Amess, David
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ashton, Joe
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Barnes, Harry
Blunkett, David


Battle, John
Boateng, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Bowden, Andrew





Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Byers, Stephen
McAllion, John


Callaghan, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
McCrea, Rev William


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Macdonald, Calum


Cann, Jamie
McFall, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Clapham, Michael
McMaster, Gordon


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Madden, Max


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Maginnis, Ken


Cohen, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Connarty, Michael
Michael, Alun


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbett, Robin
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Corston, Ms Jean
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Cousins, Jim
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Cox, Tom
Mudie, George


Cryer, Bob
Mullin, Chris


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Murphy, Paul


Dafis, Cynog
Olner, William


Davidson, Ian
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Day, Stephen
Parry, Robert


Denham, John
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Pendry, Tom


Dobson, Frank
Pickthall, Colin


Donohoe, Brian H.
Picke, Peter L.


Dover, Den
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Primarolo, Dawn


Eastham, Ken
Purchase, Ken


Enright, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Etherington, Bill
Randall, Stuart


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Raynsford, Nick


Fatchett, Derek
Redmond, Martin


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Robathan, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


French, Douglas
Rogers, Allan


Gapes, Mike
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


George, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Simpson, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Snape, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hall, Mike
Spellar, John


Hanson, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hoey, Kate
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hood, Jimmy
Thornton, sir Malcolm


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Tipping, Paddy


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Trimble, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Vaz, Keith


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Walley, Joan


Jessel, Toby
Wardel, Gareth (Gower)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Wareing, Robert N


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Watson, Mike


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Wicks, Malcolm


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Wigley, Dafydd


Keen, Alan
Williams, Rt hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Winnick, David


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lewis, Terry



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Lord, Michael
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again.

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
The order is made under powers in schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. The purpose of the draft order is to give effect to the changes in the regulations governing the ownership of the regional ITV companies that I announced on 24 November. I made it clear then that the proposed changes were subject to parliamentary approval.
The draft order amends the present order restricting the holding of licences, which was made in May 1991, in two ways. First, article 2(1) amends article 3 of the 1991 order. Its effect is to remove the distinction between licences for the nine areas with the largest advertising revenue and those for the other six areas. Article 3 of the 1991 order prevents anyone from holding two licences in the nine large areas. The draft order would remove that restriction, except that no one could hold both London licences. The overall limit on holding no more than two licences remains. The other change is technical. Article 2(2) removes from the 1991 order provisions which have now expired and the references to them.
Before I explain the reasons that led me to propose these changes, I should like to reply to criticisms by some Opposition Members that I did not come to the House and make a statement about these proposals. As the House will know, I issued a press notice at 8.30 on the morning of 24 November as the stock market opened, sending a copy at the same time to the Independent Television Commission and the ITV companies. I wrote to a number of right hon. and hon. Members with an interest in broadcasting issues, and I gave a written reply to a parliamentary question later in the day.
As I explained in those letters, these arrangements were made to avoid a period of intense speculation on the stock exchange, which was the likely result if it had become known that an announcement would be made later in the day. This arrangement is usual for Government announcements that are market sensitive. In reaching decisions on the best way of making the announcement, I was influenced by the knowledge that the draft order was subject to debate both here and in another place.
As many hon. Members will be aware, considerable changes are taking place in broadcasting, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. The most obvious change is the increase in the number of channels and services available. In the United Kingdom, we have had an increasing number of cable and satellite channels, as well as new radio services. Even more services are likely in a few years wiith the introduction of digital transmission technology. The technologies of broadcasting, telecommunications and computers are already beginning to converge, and this process can be expected to continue at an accelerating pace.
Similarly, although it is likely that some traditional broadcasting services will remain, many other services of entertainment, information and education will become available. In the foreseeable future, people will be able to pick and choose from a wide range of sources of news, information and entertainment, including films, videos,


music, and computer games. Some services will be interactive. People will be able to pay for individual items, as well as whole services. The choice and variety available to the public will be greater than we have ever seen.
Another significant change is the way in which broadcasting is becoming an international activity. A global market for broadcasting is opening up. The United Kingdom should be well placed to take advantage of these opportunities. Broadcasting has been one of the success stories in the United Kingdom in the past 50 years. The high quality of the programmes in our broadcasting services is widely recognised, both here and abroad. ITV companies have, for many years, sold programmes successfully to foreign broadcasting organisations. But the new markets will go well beyond the export of individual programmes, into the provision of whole channels, and a range of services.
The Government want to ensure that United Kingdom broadcasters can build on the success achieved so far and take advantage of the new opportunities that are opening up. We have been holding meetings with senior broadcasting executives to discuss these issues with them. We shall want to consider how these markets are likely to develop and to make sure that there are no unnecessary obstacles that prevent the United Kingdom broadcasters from taking up these opportunities. In saying that, we have to recognise that broadcasters in other countries will be looking for opportunities in the United Kingdom.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does that mean that someone from the Irish Republic could buy, say, Ulster Television? Enough republican propaganda pours through at the moment—we do not want an overdose of it.

Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I always welcome his interventions. The answer to his question is yes, and it would be the case even without the order.
Broadcasting is entering a period of rapid development that is likely to create a revolution in the way we distribute and receive information and education and entertainment services. We are, however, only at the early stages of those changes. It is difficult to foresee the precise nature of the changes or the speed at which they take place.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and some other Opposition Members understand that major changes are taking place and agree that in the coming months we should look again at the present restrictions on cross-media ownership, as we intend to do.
We are in a period of transition and we need to consider how best to advance. Some people, including the hon. Lady, believe that the best way forward is to stand still. She advocates extending the so-called moratorium. That is the provision in the Broadcasting Act 1990 due to expire at the end of this year. The provision does not prevent takeovers from occurring, but requires the Independent Television Commission to approve them before they take place.
I considered that option carefully, not least because some ITV companies advocated it, but concluded that extending that regulatory requirement was not the best approach to expanding markets. It is, in any case, an illusion to think that we can achieve a continuing breathing space for ITV by legislative means when the rest of the broadcasting world is developing so rapidly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brooke: I shall give way, but, as the whole House is aware, we are anxious to make progress.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but the whole House is also anxious to have information from the Government. The Minister said that he has had discussions with various senior television company directors. What discussions did he have and what representations did he receive from his own regulator, the ITC, on the matter?

Mr. Brooke: I shall gladly respond to the hon. Gentleman. He is correct in saying that the House would always want to have the information.
We have had a number of discussions with the ITC. There may have been a degree of misunderstanding in the press in recent days in so far as there was a debate between the ITC and ourselves about my announcement or the particular timing of the ITC receiving it, but we have had discussions in the past about the changes we might make.
As the House will know, the ITV companies had different views about the best way forward. I called a meeting at which all the companies were represented by their chairmen or chief executives so that I could hear their views. I wanted to make sure that all the companies, large and small, had an opportunity to explain their position to me directly. I also consulted the Independent Television Commission, as I said in my answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. He had discussions with the ITC. What conclusions did the ITC reach and what did it say to him?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows that, even when the Broadcasting Act was going through the House and in the immediate aftermath of it, the ITC believed that the moratorium should last longer than had been built into the Act. Of course I would acknowledge that, but it was a subject that we discussed with the ITC. A number of other interested organisations, including the advertising industry, discussed their views with me or with officials in my Department. I found all those discussions helpful, not least because they gave me an insight into the way in which television is developing.
In reaching a decision, I tried to look beyond the immediate issue to the medium term. I have two clear objectives. First, I want to ensure that the British public keep the television services that they value and that the diversity of choice that they have is maintained and extended.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: As a veteran of the Broadcasting Bill and as someone who also went to most meetings in the consultation period on the HTV licence area, I recall that all the other competitors said that they wanted not only to have regional television but for it to be regionally owned. As a result, HTV was driven to pay a large premium to acquire the franchise. Now the right hon. Gentleman is changing all the rules. He is saying that the ownership argument is irrelevant. That is unfair. The basis on which we argued that case drove HTV to pay a higher price than Central Television and others. Now the right hon. Gentleman is changing the rules. Surely he ought to think about it again in the light of the evidence.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for that point, and for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's experience. However, it is possible to ensure that the regional commitment is met in


the provision of regional television through the exercise of the licence, administered and monitored by the ITC. In that respect, ownership is a different matter.
ITV services are watched by well over 90 per cent. of the population each week. My answer to those who have criticised the proposed changes as being too limited and rather timid is that the millions of people who take pleasure from ITV programmes would not thank us if we moved suddenly from a position of close regulation to one of complete deregulation of ownership, and in so doing undermined the foundations of the present services. I have to take account of the services to the public as well as the opportunities for investment.
My other main objective is to sustain the production base for broadcast programmes in the United Kingdom. That is the key to high quality services here and to the potential increase in exports. As the number of channels increases here and throughout the world, the production of programmes and programme rights will become an increasingly valuable asset.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the Secretary of State confirm that BSkyB is exempt from the requirement on commercial television to broadcast a percentage of domestically made products? If that is still the case, how can it be justified?

Mr. Brooke: It is not exempt—it is subject to the European Commission directive. As recently as October, I submitted statistics to the Commission in Brussels showing the European content—European in the context of this country meaning mainly British—of all the channels for which we have responsibility as regulators.
Some 73 per cent. of the programmes broadcast by ITV are made in Europe, most of them within the UK. A large proportion of the programming is original material, made for ITV's audiences. Those programmes reflect the UK's traditions and culture, and that of its regions. We want that to continue.
We also want to sustain the production base throughout the UK, as well as in London and the south-east. The ITC's licence conditions require that 80 per cent. of regional programming is produced in the area. The ITV companies have told me that they regard the regional nature of the ITV system as of crucial importance. They know that it is valued by their audiences, so it will be in the interest of the companies to maintain regional programming and production.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, I will, but at this hour the House wishes me not to slow down.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Under the licence held by Central Television, not 80 per cent. but 95 per cent. of the programmes have to be made in the regions. What assurances can he give those of us concerned about the future that such a restriction will continue to apply now that Central has been handed over, lock, stock and barrel, to Carlton?

Mr. Brooke: The ITC will continue to monitor the conduct of the licence, which was issued to Central, and it will continue to be Central that ITV is monitoring.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: The House would like the opportunity to question the Secretary of State, rather than listen to him gabble through his brief. Those of us who might be persuaded that there is a case for relaxing the ownership rule and allowing mergers to take place, which would lead to the strengthening of the ownership of ITV companies, would be more persuaded of the case if, by the same token, the powers of the regulatory body were also strengthened so that there was a balance between the two. The strengthening of ownership but also an increase of power to the regulator—would that not be a more balanced and sensible approach?

Mr. Brooke: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the discussions that I have had with the ITC have included whether it is confident that it would be able to monitor the conduct of the licences if there were a change of ownerships, and it has declared itself satisfied and confident.
I should not have proposed these changes if I thought that they would put at risk the regional programming and regional production which are such valued features of the ITV system. The Broadcasting Act 1990 places requirements on ITV licence holders about regional programming and production. They are reinforced by the conditions of the ITC's licences, which include the promises about programmes made by the companies when they applied for licences. I know that the ITC takes its licence conditions very seriously. Each year it will assess how far the ITV companies have complied with the licence conditions. If any licence holders fail to comply with their licence conditions, the commission is obliged by law to include information about the failures in its annual report, which is presented to Parliament.
However, the ITV companies have to operate effectively in the changing world of broadcasting. Partnerships are already being formed throughout the world to take advantage of the new opportunities. Major media organisations are combining groups of linked enterprises, bringing together programme production, music recordings, publishing interests and broadcasting outlets, including terrestrial broadcasting as well as cable and satellite. In other words, they are linking the material to be distributed and the means of distribution.
In this world of giant conglomerates, with turnovers of billions of pounds, most of the ITV companies are comparatively small. We think that they should be able to take a more active role in forming new partnerships in the global market than would have been possible under the present regulations.
As they explained to me, the ITV companies themselves agree that it is unlikely that it will be possible for the ITV system to continue for much longer with 15 regional companies plus the national breakfast-time company. They believed that a measure of consolidation was desirable, and they told me of the various ways in which companies were already co-operating. However, they had different views about the degree of consolidation that should take place and the speed at which it should happen. Therefore, although there were different opinions about the best way of reaching the objective and the speed of travel, there was agreement about the general direction in which the television industry needed to go.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: What opinion did the right hon. Gentleman receive from


HTV? Did not HTV believe that it should remain independent, centred on Wales and largely owned by Welsh Wales so that it would be able to continue to deliver a thoroughly Welsh service with a strong emphasis on the Welsh language? What view did HTV express to him?

Mr. Brooke: I am slightly diffident about giving the detailed opinions of each company as the conversations were confidential. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what the general thrust of HTV's view was, and I would not suggest that it was a million miles from what he said.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State not aware that for many years—indeed, since the creation of the film industry—television and film productions have been made by powerful companies, usually in the United States or with money originating in the United States? There has never been a lack of programme making outside the United Kingdom. Companies in the United Kingdom were protected by the understandable desire of Parliament to keep a British involvement in British cultural material. Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposed rules will radically change that position and that it will not be possible to continue regional production as it was in the past?

Mr. Brooke: I know from previous exchanges with the hon. Lady that this is a subject in which she takes a keen interest, not least with regard to film production. The manner in which Governments of different colours have dealt with the film industry in the past 25 years does not encourage one to think that we do not need to pay close attention to preventing broadcasting from going the same way.
Having reflected carefully on the views expressed to me, I concluded that it would be right to propose changes that would allow two larger companies to join together, except in London. That is the purpose of the order. I do not think that it would be sensible at this stage to go further without a thorough examination of the likely effect of greater deregulation in the ownership of media enterprises. There are, as we know, disadvantages in such concentrations. They can be anti-competitive and prevent newcomers from gaining access to the market; they can restrict choice for audiences and advertisers, nationally or locally. At worst, they can restrict freedom of speech and expression. Broadcasting is more than an economic activity.

Mr. John Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be no further changes in the position of commercial television until the BBC's charter has been dealt with—either renewed or subjected to another Government proposal?

Mr. Brooke: I do not want to give that precise assurance. We shall want to examine the cross-media ownership factors in the way that I described earlier—a method, incidentally, to which Opposition Front Benchers urge us to return. The speed at which change is occurring means that we cannot freeze time at particular moments to enable things to "catch up". I recognise, of course, that the debate on the BBC charter renewal is going on at the same time. We shall need to take account of all those factors in reviewing arrangements for cross-media ownership and vertical integration.
Organisations that cannot adapt to changing circumstances do not survive. Those who wish to preserve the ITV system as it existed in the 1980s, or even in the 1970s, are more likely to hasten its decline than to promote its healthy survival. That is why the Government decided not to extend the so-called moratorium. That has achieved what it was intended to achieve—a short period of stability during the transition from the old ITV system to the system introduced in January this year. Let me say in passing that, on the basis of the figures for the first nine months, the amount of regional programming that has been produced under the new arrangements is substantially up on the previous year.

Mr. Michael Bates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the merger of the Yorkshire and Tyne Tees franchises and companies has brought significant benefits to my constituents by providing a new local news service? The service, which has cost £1·5 million, is broadcast from Belasis technology park in Stockton. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that if another company bids for Yorkshire it will not be able to dump the Tyne Tees franchise to comply with the two-franchise limit?

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to hear about the new local news service. Any bidder for Yorkshire-Tyne Tees would be confronted with the fact that Yorkshire already has a second station.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: What is the answer then?

Mr. Brooke: The bidder could not effect a change unless it had divested itself.
It makes no sense to try to protect the ITV companies indefinitely from the disciplines of the market, nor should it be necessary.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: The Secretary of State is right in saying that if a third party bids for Yorkshire and Tyne Tees, under the existing arrangements the bid will not proceed. Will he give an assurance, however, that he will examine possible ways in which Tyne Tees could be hived off from Yorkshire, and that any hiving-off process will not simply enable one company to gain control of three companies by the back door? We want a real separation, rather than a false separation that could damage the interests of either company.

Mr. Brooke: Having not been wholly solicitous to those who intervened earlier, I thank the hon. Gentleman profoundly. His intervention enables me to correct an answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who intervened from a sedentary position. Of course divestment would not be required if the bid came from an organisation not currently holding a television station licence. It is for the ITC to do all that it can to ensure that licensees comply with the ownership rules. It would monitor the process described by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
The need for adjustments to the ownership regulations was always foreseen, which is why we made provision for the main provisions to be extended and altered by order, subject to the approval of Parliament, rather than by primary legislation. I do not rule out further changes in the


future, but the change that we are debating today is a first step in the direction in which the Government believe that we need to go. I commend the order to the House.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The Secretary of State has glibly presented a gross simplification of a complex issue. There is general agreement about its complexity and that the Secretary of State has failed to grasp it completely. One of the many City analysts who commented on the matter stated that the Government's action was
only the latest and silliest turn in this textbook example of how not to regulate an industry.
At this wee hour of the morning, it would be unnecessarily cruel to go further, but that accusation of silliness is a compliment compared with many other comments. The most flattering was "a botched job".
We appreciate the Secretary of State's apology to the House this evening for the two-week gap between announcing his proposals to the market and giving Parliament its democratic right to debate and to vote on them. We understand the legislation's market-sensitive nature, but it would have helped if the Secretary of State had understood that it is contempt of Parliament to delay a debate to such an extent that two takeover bids are already launched.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Lady not agree with the concept of a television company in my constituency joining another to continue producing splendid drama such as "Brideshead Revisited", investigative documentaries such as "World in Action" and blockbusters such as "Coronation Street"? At the same time, they could compete with the growth of satellite channels such as TNT and CNN from Murdoch and Turner, cable and the telecommunications industry—which will soon provide viewers with videos on demand at the touch of a button. Is it not right that companies such as Granada should be able to join with others for growth and to produce the programmes that we want to see?

Ms Mowlam: We called for a continuing moratorium, to allow a review of the kind that is necessary, given the complexity of the market that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Of course there is satellite and cable, and it is illogical and unfair that Murdoch can own 100 per cent. of a non-domestic satellite service when other newspapers can own only 20 per cent. of an ITV company. We do not want the half-cock proposals that are before the House this evening. We asked one year ago for a review and for rational and sensible proposals.
As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course we want genuine regional productions and programmes of the quality of "Brideshead Revisited"—but the Secretary of State body-swerved and ducked the question of the ITC having the power not just to regulate and monitor standards but to enforce them. We want quality television, and it worries us that the ITC's ability to regulate and monitor may be lost as television companies grow, become more powerful and centralise. The ITC has done a good job in many areas, but can it continue to do so?

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the hon. Lady aware that the ITC has the power to impose a

fine for a first offence of 3 per cent. of qualifying annual revenue each month, and of 5 per cent. for subsequent offences? Is that not enough of a sanction?

Ms Mowlam: There is not enough sanction in the sense that the ITC rightly has those powers post facto. As a result of what the Secretary of State has introduced we will experience some takeovers. Potentially two large whales could develop and a number of small companies—minnows at best—will desperately try to survive in a competitive market—they will compete over advertising and industrial muscle.
What concerns Labour Members and, I think, Tory Members is that as that power is centralised, regional companies may not be able to continue to make the quality productions that we want. That is what is important.

Ms Diane Abbott: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) says that companies such as Granada need to merge to continue to produce programmes of the quality of "World in Action" and "Brideshead Revisited" His argument is back to front. Under the previous regionally-based regulated system, programmes of that quality were produced. The problem is that with the post Broadcasting Act system, the possibility of producing such quality programmes recedes further into the distance.

Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Her final point should be emphasised. Part of the difficulty that we face this evening is that the problems in the industry have resulted from the Broadcasting Act 1990 and its flaws. Labour Members pointed out those flaws day in and day out. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) did a courageous job and provided a lot of valuable policy information. She sought to show how damaging the 1990 Act was to so many regional television companies when she said that it has seriously imperilled some of the world's leading producers of television programmes.
We need only look at the mess, the farce and the tragedy that that Act created. Central Television pays the Treasury £2,000 a year. Now that there is a takeover bid for Central Television, it is worth £750 million plus. That tells us that the Broadcasting Act is ludicrous.

Mr. Tim Renton: Does the hon. Lady recognise that the chairman of the Independent Television Commission, Sir George Russell, said that there has been much more stability in the independent television industry following the 1990 Act than there was following other franchise changes, for example, the change 10 years ago? [Laughter.] It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh. It is the judgment of the chairman of the Independent Television Commission.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said that the Labour party had been campaigning for the moratorium to continue. That is not my impression. Is it not correct to say that the hon. Lady is widely known in the television industry for saying that the moratorium should not be continued and that takeovers must be allowed, otherwise from January onwards Bertlesmann or Berlusconi could bid for Central Television? She realised that, under such circumstances, it would be impossible for a British bid for Central Television not to be accepted. Surely, what has


happened is that, when faced with two takeovers and the change in share prices, the Labour party typically panics and changes its view, which has been sensible until now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Several hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye in this short debate. If we have interventions of that length, not many hon. Members will be able to do so.

Ms Mowlam: I shall answer the points made by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). First, the ITC has clearly said that it would like a continuation of the moratorium.

Mr. Renton: indicated dissent.

Ms Mowlam: The right hon. Gentleman can shake his head. I quote from paragraph 39 on page 457 of the ITC's submission to the Select Committee on National Heritage:
The Government's intention on extending the moratorium beyond the end of this year is not yet clear. The ITC continues to favour an extension and from the same standpoint has considered whether that would be a benefit in changing the rules.
So the position of the ITC is clear.
The Independent Television Commission has argued, as many have, that stability in the market is necessary. However, the announcement in the past two weeks has created a degree of instability in the market for some of the bigger companies as well as some of the smaller ones.
Let me now answer the second point that the right hon. Gentleman made. The Opposition have supported a moratorium and want to continue a moratorium to review cross-ownership. The honest difference between myself and my predecessor, if he wants it on record, is that she wanted it for three years and I favoured 18 months—I have said at least 12 months—because the changes that are taking place in the market, partly as a result of the instability that the Secretary of State has created by the half-hearted move that is now being made, are making the problem worse.
The difficulty that will confront us from 1 January, partly as a result of what the Secretary of State has done, is that any company in Europe will be able to come and take 100 per cent. of a British television company. One cannot do that in France because one would be prevented from doing so; a foreign company can take only 25 per cent. of a French television company. One cannot do it in Germany because one would be prevented from doing so; a foreign company can take only 50 per cent. One cannot do it in Spain because one would be prevented from doing so; a foreign company can take only 25 per cent. I could go on. That is the difficulty.
As a result of the short-termism of the institutional fund managers of this country and the short-termism of the British Government, we are leaving our small regional television companies totally exposed to European companies which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are built into consortia with cross-media ownership, which is difficult to break into. That is what we mean by a moratorium. We want that moratorium to continue because the Government have exposed our regional companies in an outrageous way.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rowlands: May I just draw to my hon. Friend's attention a simple fact? As she pointed out, Central paid a meaningless sum of money; HTV paid a large sum of money for one reason only—that other competitors were

not only showing that they were competing for a regional station, they were actually arguing the case on ownership grounds and now the Government are changing the rules. In our view, we are left with the HTV company saddled with a huge bill because of the Broadcasting Act and the consequence is that a company such as HTV cannot produce programmes because it has to spend the money paying fees.

Ms. Mowlam: That is exactly the problem that the Opposition have emphasised. Smaller companies are being put in a position in which it is impossible for them to produce the quality programmes that we would like. I challenge the hon. Members opposite who represent regions throughout the country that have that type of regional television that they want to be protected and preserved. If those hon. Members walk into the Lobbies with the Government tonight they will be calling into question the future of those regional television stations.
So that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is not just Labour hon. Members who agree with me, let me quote from a letter from one of the Conservative Peers in the other place, Lord Buxton. He said in a letter on 7 December:
what is being done by the Broadcasting Amendment Order, is a tentative half-measure which produces the worst of all worlds, it will totally unbalance the system, and could lead before long to the eroding of the regional structure.
That is the type of worry that other hon. Members share.
Let me return to the final point that the hon. Gentleman made. He says that some of the smaller television companies believe that as a result of this change they will be so exposed after 1 January—exactly the point that my hon. Friend made in relation to HTV—that the Minister has to do something. Otherwise British broadcasting will not be British any more. The same will happen as it did to our film industry and to our insurance industry in the 1980s—it will be destroyed. The Secretary of State can end up by saying that it is important in terms of democratic values and as part of British industry, but what he is doing is potentially destroying both. That is what the Opposition find so disconcerting.
It is not that we were not saying what we have said clearly; let me just reinforce the argument and give other hon. Members a chance to speak. The Opposition have set out the criteria clearly and we believe that they should be reinforced. We want, above all, for regional television to be retained. By that I mean regional production, quality regional production, with a local management team. Some of the Opposition contributions earlier were about companies being regionally owned. As a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990, most of the companies are no longer regionally owned unless one considers Schroders or Barclays De Zoet, Mercury Asset Management or Warburgs as being regionally owned. That is the problem that confronts us as a result of the Act. Now we want an Act that defends that regional production strongly and continues the regional identity that is there and that independent home-grown broadcasting industry. That is why we have argued for a moratorium. We believe that if that were done, the continuation of the present irrational situation would make things worse for the other options—cable, satellite and the other choices for people in this country.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of my interest in the matter. [HON.


MEMBERS: "What is it?] I chair the all-party media group of which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is vice-chairman, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is also involved. Does the hon. Lady believe that the order will give the regional television companies more strength to resist overseas predators? I share her view that we want British broadcasting to remain British, so if she can say that the order will not have that effect, I shall have more sympathy with her argument.

Ms Mowlam: I do think that the order will have that effect for the smaller television companies. There is no doubt that they will be deeply exposed after 1 January, and their future will be in question. That is a serious problem. My honest answer is that, although if the Carlton-Central deal goes ahead the company will be bigger, we still have no broadcasting company big enough to be one of the top 20 in Europe in terms of commercial revenue. As we go into Europe we have a problem with British broadcasting as a growth industry. But there is no doubt that it will help those companies. There is no doubt that that help will not be offered to them. Our problem is that technology is moving at great speed, but our legislation is that of five years ago. We need a vision of where British broadcasting—

Mr. David Lidington: But the hon. Lady wants a moratorium.

Ms Mowlam: Yes, I want a moratorium, because I do not want developments at the present speed that expose half the companies while giving an unfair benefit to the others, and that brings about no recognition of the changes in satellite and cable. For example, in August two North American consortia put £650 million into cabling the populated areas of south and west Yorkshire. Where are the British companies? They are not there, because of the irrationality of the present legislation. That is why we need a moratorium, so that we can take the British broadcasting industry forward together. Such vision goes with the need that we have always emphasised for quality regional television. We want those two developments to move forward together.
If the order goes through, the Secretary of State will place a question mark over the future of regional production and make it harder for our companies to compete in Europe. With one small amendment of the law he will achieve the worst of both worlds.

Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having the foresight and courage to take the shackles off the British television industry and to allow it the opportunity—no more than that—to move forward, to merge and to compete in the communications industry of the next century.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who spoke for the Opposition, made a plea for vision, but it was backed up by nothing of substance. She made a plea for an outdated broadcasting and television industry. The communications industry of the next century will be about more than simply television or broadcasting; it will allow every household to have a wide flat screen and will bring into that household not only digitally transmitted pictures

and entertainment, but data, education, home shopping and home banking. There will be video-telephony. In every home there will be a communications centre the like of which most Opposition Members have not even begun to imagine.
If the United Kingdom is to have the remotest chance of playing a part in the communications industry of the next century, we shall have to create economies of scale. Not one company in this country now—not Carlton, not Central, not Granada, nor any other organisation—has the size and capacity single-handedly to play a major part on that world stage. There is a stark choice before us. My right hon. Friend has recognised that. Thank God that he has done so in time. We must allow major players in this country to merge if they are to attain the size and scale and the financial clout to compete and to create the industry of the next century. If we do not do that, we will be left sitting on the sidelines. I have said for a long time that this country has more creative power and skill than most other countries in the world, but we will need to take it forward from tonight.
I will be brief in what I have to say. I do not think that we have gone anything like far enough, but tonight is the first step. Opposition Members talk about regional broadcasting. There is one national broadcaster in this country with a number of regional outlets. Those outlets provide good regional broadcasting, including news programmes, and they have regional production centres. The broadcaster is called the BBC. If the BBC can do it, one commercial and terrestrial company can do it if it is necessary.
Those companies will be competing not with each other, but with cable and satellite which will bring in, in the case of the Hughes corporation, 104 channels when digital transmission comes. Are we seriously saying that, at the moment, there is one company in this country that has the commercial and the artistic power to compete with any of those competitors? The answer is no.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that what he has just said is absolutely right? The BBC acts as a national and a regional company and it will have to compete in the future with the likes of Turner, which has brought in CNN and TNT, and is looking to introduce other stations via satellite to compete with the BBC. Murdoch also has introduced main channels already via satellite, and that company will be looking to expand its market also. If the BBC is to be up against it in future, and if the independent television companies, which are split, are not allowed to join together and to compete rationally—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already informed the House that many hon. Members want to catch my eye during a short debate. It is unfair on people wanting to speak for hon. Members to make long interventions.

Mr. Gale: I will always agree with my hon. Friend if he agrees that he is agreeing with me. He is, of course, absolutely right. The crux of the argument is simple. We must have a communications industry—not an entertainment, television or broadcasting industry—which plays a part within, not just the United Kingdom and Europe, but hopefully in overseas markets.
If we are to do that—here I will make a mild criticism of my right hon. Friend—then the step which has been taken tonight has not gone far enough. One has only to look


at graphs of advertising sales. Due to the nature of competition from satellite and from an increasing number of channels, the advertising sales graphs are falling. If the sales are falling and production costs are rising, as they are, it is absolutely certain that, without economies of scale, a number of the regional companies to which the hon. Lady referred will not survive franchise—takeover or not. They will go to the wall within three years. I will put money, or a bottle of champagne, on that with the hon. Lady.
If there are no takeovers and the regional companies are left marginalised, they will in three years' time simply not exist because they have no economy of scale or the financial power to compete.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman voted for the Broadcasting Act 1990.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman should know that I served on the Committee which dealt with the Broadcasting Bill. I said then, and I will say now, that that was a Bill for the 1990s. What we are talking about tonight—I hope—is the communications industry of the United Kingdom for the year 2000 and beyond.
The hon. Lady talked about a sense of vision, but if we are to have that sense of vision, let us not have a moratorium that would put the brakes on.

Mr. Morgan: Did the hon. Gentleman say that some of the companies for whose franchises, I take it, he voted in 1990 would not survive the next three years? Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly?

Mr. Gale: I did not vote for those franchises. Indeed, I am on record as saying that the lucky people were those who did not win the franchises, because only a mug would have made a successful bid. Anyone with any sense could see the way the entertainment and communications industries were going. The companies will not survive.
If there is to be a sense of vision, we must look beyond the regions to what is going to happen in the United Kingdom, Europe and the world in the year 2000 and beyond. What we need is certainly not a moratorium of any kind; we do not want the brakes put on. We want them taken off, just as my right hon. Friend has done this evening. But we must go further. We shall have to get used to the idea that we do not need a review. By the time a review had been carried out, the technology would have overtaken it.

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mr. Gale: No, I am sorry. I have already given way several times. I hope that the hon. Lady will catch the Chair's eye later.
We need to realise that by the end of the century we are likely to end up with no more than three independent terrestrial television companies in the United Kingdom. We must also understand that there will be mergers—not only between television companies but between television and data and telephony companies; and between all of them and newspapers, too.
In the year 2000 and beyond there will be an electronic, digitally transmitted communications industry. The only way to bring that about is by economies of scale. We should see this process through with courage. Some Opposition Members, I know, agree with me. If we seize this chance with both hands, we will be left not with the

rump of a United Kingdom television industry but with an industry at the forefront of a worldwide and powerful communications industry. That is my vision of the future.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I had entertained the vain hope that before any Conservative Member embarked on his speech he would begin by apologising to the House and the country for passing the Broadcasting Act three years ago. No doubt my contribution tonight will be a hopeless quest, as I am sure the order will be agreed to.
I should declare an interest. I am a member of the National Union of Journalists and belong to the broadcasting union. I worked for a number of years for Central Television. I have no financial interest in this matter—but I do wish that the Secretary of State had listened to one or two people who did not have a massive financial interest before he introduced the order. I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman the simple truth about what has happened to independent television in the past six short years.
These events did not come about because of acts of God or the inevitable progress of satellite and cable. The right hon. Gentleman, like his predecessor, seems to think that this is all beyond his control. It pains me to have to remind him that he is part of the Government. Governments exist to control and to regulate in the best interests of the people.
Six years ago, commercial television had some faults but also one or two great strengths; one was that throughout the country there were powerful regional centres of production. More than 2,000 people were working at Central, in Birmingham, which I know best. There were four busy studios and a range of expert technicians—vision mixers, sound editors and so on, all of whom possessed an expertise that could be drawn on to make good programmes. Most of the company owners and managers lived and worked in the region and watched the output as and when it was broadcast.
As Conservative Members are phenomenally interested in accounts, I should add that commercial television, with the rest of the broadcasting industry, managed to contribute to a surplus on our balance of trade payments. We were net exporters of television programmes, and all the signs were that the viewers were quite pleased with what was going on, too.
What has happened to commercial television since then? No one denies that cable and satellite may have created instability, although the problems that they caused are not as great as the Government have suggested. It was the Broadcasting Act 1990 which caused massive destabilisation—no one who has studied the industry would challenge that assertion.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read "Under the Hammer", subtitled "The ITV Franchise Battle—Greed and Glory Inside the Television Business", which was written by an industrial correspondent. It should be required reading. The dust-cover explains that the book
tells the story of an extraordinary business circus that became, in the words of one television mogul, 'pure poker'".
That person was right.
As a result of the Act, Central—good luck to it—got the franchise for £2,000, while another, Yorkshire, paid £38 million for a franchise. No wonder that company has been destabilised. Will those free marketeers on the Conservative Benches please tell me where the logic and sense are in that system? The consequences of the Act have


been utterly predictable. I do not know whether Conservative Members are too concerned about such issues, but employment in commercial television has dropped from 16,000 before the Act to about 8,000. Central has reduced its work force from more than 2,000 to about 800. Instead of running four busy studios in Birmingham, it now only regularly uses one of them.
Television programme production used to appear as a surplus in the balance of trade, but it now appears as a deficit. I do not even pray in aid the experiences of Opposition Members, because even the Baroness herself was disenchanted with the Act when she saw what happened to TV-am. I do not shed any tears over that, but Lady Thatcher described herself as bitterly unhappy about what had happened to that company. I believe that the Prime Minister also commented that the decision was not an optimum success, or used some other similar ringing phrase.
What are we being asked to approve tonight?

Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman suggested that Central had reduced its production facilities. Can he explain why? It cannot surely be because it paid too much for its franchise. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has already said that a large national organisation called the BBC makes some very good regional programmes.

Mr. Grocott: Regional centres of production have been run down as a consequence of the Government's requirement to pass work out to independent producers. Another inevitable consequence of the Act has been a drift of television production to the south, because those independnet producers tend to be based in London, although they may have a shop-front somewhere else.
It is ironic that the only part of the network that has been protected by the Government is the merger between London Weekend Television and Carlton. The Government have made sure that London has been looked after.
The terms of the Act have operated for three years, but Conservative Members argue that they are now hopelessly out of date, despite the fact that they passed the Act. In that time, the Secretary of State has further destabilised the system. He has thrown good money after bad. He is now trying to tinker with an Act that is already bad. We already know two inevitable consequences of his actions: the industry will suffer further job losses, and decisions will be made in London and not in the regions.
The right hon. Gentleman has started to talk about regional programming in almost patronising terms. It is suggested that one can dismiss all the franchise requirements as long as companies make their regional half-hour news programmes, cover regional sport or whatever. That is supposed to be equivalent to providing for regional television. That is not what it is about. What we want in the regions are companies that make not only regional programmes but national programmes for the network. Companies have the facilities, the range of skills and the expertise to achieve that, but that will not be the result of the Government's proposals.
Central will be taken over by Carlton and managed and run from London. I belatedly ask the Secretary of State why no reference was made, in anything that he said or in

press releases from the managers of the various companies that are now making Monopoly money, to the service that is to be delivered to the viewer? The order is all about the needs of the City and the need for companies to amalgamate to compete. There are no measures on how to deliver to the public the service which they have come to expect over the years and which once made British broadcasting admired and recognised throughout the world.
I ask the Secretary of State, although I fear that I ask in vain, to call a moratorium on broadcasting and to say, "We fiddled about too much and it has had a disastrous effect on the industry." Let us take an overall view of broadcasting and not pick off ITV, the BBC and other parts of the service. Above all, let us recognise broadcasting for what it can be—an outstanding, miraculous medium, which, at its best, television is, rather than something that is there for the delights of advertisers and financiers in the City. The purpose of broadcasting is to enrich our nation and to provide excellent programmes for viewers.
In vain, I appeal to the Secretary of State and to Conservative Members to consider television in that light. That is what they should be doing, but it will not be achieved by the order, which is why we should vote against it.

Mr. Tim Renton: I agree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on one matter—the importance of programming. Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), fail to recognise that it is all very well to talk about programming, but what about the cost? There is much difference between original production, which costs £50,000 an hour, and good original production, which now costs £500,000 an hour. One of the purposes of the order is to ensure that the production base of the ITV companies is maintained. That will be achieved by ensuring that enough good, strong companies have the financial strength to produce good, original programmes.
It is all very well to say that we must keep 15 companies, which will all make regional productions and which are important—let no one regard them as otherwise—but if they are too small, regional production simply will not be very good. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to ensure that our independent television companies are big enough for the quality of programming to be good.
I wholly agree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin that not all the attention of boards, chairmen and managing directors must be on share prices and huge capital gains. If that were so, I should worry about it, too. What I want to see, however, is an independent television industry big enough to continue to produce extremely good new programming not only for the regions but for export around the world.
Before continuing—I promise that I shall not speak for long—I must declare an interest. I am a chairman of a new company called Interactive Telephone Services, which is trying to persuade all the television companies to do more interactive programming. That, of course, is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. None the less, I should say that to the House tonight.
One of the mistakes of the Broadcasting Act 1990—and I was one of its architects at the Home Office—was that we


listened too much to the argument about the need for regional companies to continue. We were under tremendous pressure to ensure that there was not just one Scottish independent television company, but STV and Grampian, and that Border television continued rather than being merged with Granada or Tyne Tees. We bought that argument, but now, as others including my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) have said, the world has moved on. Those companies are not big enough and will not survive as they are presently constituted.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: I know that the hon. Lady is an expert on the subject, but if she will forgive me I would rather she made her own contribution than force me to give way to her as I wish to complete my speech reasonably soon.

Ms Jackson: In the time that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to say no I could have said what I wished to say.

Mr. Renton: Very well—I give way to the hon. Lady.

Ms Jackson: I am most grateful. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the contribution of his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who spoke with passion about the communications industry and the vision for the future. The communications that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are advertising communications—there is no future for programmes of quality. We have only to look at America, where there are three major companies which service nothing more than the advertising industry. They produce programmes of pap and the advertisements that surround them offend no one. Apparently that is the sort of future that Conservative Members wish to see for the British broadcasting industry—that is a disgrace.

Mr. Renton: With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, she has totally misunderstood the point. The scenario that she has described is precisely what I do not wish to see and do not intend to see.
The hon. Member for Redcar did not answer my question about the Berlusconi and Bertlesmann takeover. I agree that we obey the EC rules about bids and acquisitions more openly than the Spaniards or the Italians, but as it stands, as from 1 January Berlusconi could make a bid for Central television. If the provisions are not changed, no big British company such as Carlton will be able to bid a higher price. I do not think that that solution would be acceptable to the House.
The hon. Member for Redcar quoted Lord Buxton. She might have mentioned that he is a founder of Anglia television and has for years fought for the independent survival of Anglia. If anyone is frightened about the takeover of Anglia by continental interests, it is Lord Buxton, because he knows very well that it would be hard for the company to resist it unless a large British company was prepared to take it over. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is paving the way for that to happen, for the survival here of fewer viable units within an independent television sector that will make good programming and also live up to the regional obligations which are written into the licences that the ITC will monitor.
I hope that the review that my right hon. Friend says that he is to conduct will investigate not only the relationship between broadcasting and the press but the relationship

between the terrestrial channels and the satellite channels, and between broadcasting and radio. For reasons that we all know—due to the substantial growth of channels, particularly from the Astra satellites—it seems that the position needs to be investigated. I hope that it will come under close scrutiny in the investigation that my right hon. Friend is to conduct. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the difficult steps that he has announced this evening. They are only first steps and they are not easy steps, but it is important to take them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) prayed in aid of what the Government have done tonight the possible intervention into British television of Bertlesmann and Berlusconi. I strongly question whether anything that the Secretary of State has done tonight has erected an effective barrier against Berlusconi or Bertlesmann if they choose to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman's actions have little to do with protecting British television and have done little to strengthen the capacity of independent television to compete more effectively in other markets. There is already some successful media activity, and Britain has become a European centre for transnational broadcasting. It has become a home for such pan-European channels as MTV Europe, Super Channel, Japansat and Kindernet broadcasting to the Netherlands, and Middle East Broadcasting Centre, TV3 Scandinavia and Kanal 6 broadcasting to the Turks in Europe.
Substantial activities that did not require the permission of the Secretary of State or the alteration in the ITV map that he is countenancing are going on in this country. Many matters that were left unresolved by the 1990 Act are ripe for consideration. The issue of cross-media ownership is highly anomalous. It is particularly unsatisfactory that foreign companies can acquire British companies although British companies cannot enter the market. There is an imbalance between the position of a company such as Berlusconi looking at acquisitions here and the obstacles in the European Union countries to reverse bids.
The order does nothing to tackle the problems that face our television industry. What is being done is for financial reasons within Britain, and the consequence is a predictable narrowing of the regional base of broadcasting. During the passage of the 1990 legislation, that was regarded by the Government as the only real justification for maintaining the independent system as we knew it.
It is strange that the Government should pay so little regard to the views of their own appointed commission on independent television. They have cast to one side and have been somewhat coy about admitting the reasoning of Sir George Russell and his colleagues for seeking an extension of the moratorium. It is strange that the Secretary of State was in such a hurry to allow moves to be made when Sir George Russell and his colleagues made it abundantly clear that the change would be inevitable but should be made in the context of changes that are planned for the BBC in its charter review.
The commission said that changes should be made in the context of some proper assessment of the decline in advertising revenue for the network as a whole that would result from the increased use of cable and satellite. It also referred to changes that are bound to occur as a result of the


settling down of the scheme that was put in place only a year ago and those that will arise because of the lack of parity of treatment. Companies had to pay vastly different sums to acquire franchises.
We are in the middle of seeing how the 1990 Act will work, and to change the ground rules in the way that the Government propose is at best irrelevant to the industry's pressing needs and at worst a further unnecessary destabilisation. We do not have a great deal to go on in looking at the effect of consolidation of the 15 regions, but we have seen what has happened to Yorkshire and Tyne Tees television. In an intervention, a Conservative Member spoke about the effect on Stockton.
My general impression from speaking to people in the north-east, and Newcastle in particular, is that that consolidation has not been to the benefit of regional broadcasting. It is not simply a matter of a decline in employment in Newcastle: I expect a further decline in broadcasting employment generally. Production activity is being reduced in that greaat and important conurbation of the north-east.
I cannot see any justification for the proposed takeovers at Carlton and Central other than the avoidance of production by Carlton and the probable stripping out of further capabilities from the two companies. They call that cost cutting and burden sharing and it probably means a reduction in their capability.
I had hoped that the Secretary of State would adhere to at least the objectives of the 1990 Act in seeking to maintain regional diversity and programme quality and to ensure a degree of stability in the industry while he conducted his review. He has not made the review any easier by the steps he has taken, and I hope that the House will not consider it appropriate to approve the order.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: It seems incredible that we can be sitting here tonight with the Opposition saying that the moratorium should be continued when the wolves of Berlusconi and Bertlesmann are at ITV's door.
The order proposed tonight for the ownership of ITV licences is necessary because it will permit ITV to survive in a very hostile world—a world of international media giants and changes in technology which will permit about 104 possible channels. I have seen a demonstration in Winchester which suggested that we could be talking about 208 channels from an ordinary Astra satellite.
If ITV were confined by an ownership structure which was devised nearly 40 years ago when there was no BBC 2 and no Channel 4, it would have no future. Only the technologically and economically blind could possibly envisage that.
The core of ITV success has been its capacity to make United Kingdom programmes for United Kingdom viewers, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said this evening. In 1993, far from independent television becoming weaker, the ITV companies spent more than £500 million on original domestic productions for their network. It is, and will continue to be, a major industry.
While many of us continue to believe that Britain produces some of the best television in the world, we are starting to fall behind our foreign competitors.
The United Kingdom trade balance for the import and export of television programmes tells a depressing story. In 1985 we enjoyed a £25 million surplus. By 1991 it had fallen and by the year 2000 it is forecast to reach £640 million as new broadcasters turn to cheaper imported programmes. That makes it doubly important for ITV companies to combine their strengths.
ITV companies must be able to discard the inefficiencies of their current fragmentation if they are to sustain their commitment to the United Kingdom broadcasting network and industry.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in large parts, but if the two takeovers in the newspapers at the moment mean that £2·5 million a week has to come out of programming costs to fund the loans for the bankers, how does that add to programming and production in this country?

Mr. Fabricant: I do not accept my hon. Friend's assumption First, there has been considerable talk by Opposition Members of Central Television being locally owned. That is not the case, as we know. Central Television is owned mainly by investors from London and its biggest single investor is in Dundee, which certainly is not the midlands. The acquisition of Central Television by Carlton would strengthen the two broadcasting organisations.
I am not going to speculate on where savings might be made, but there cannot be savings from programming. Although, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said, the imposition of fines of 3 and 5 per cent. comes after the fact, like any fine, it is a deterrent. The threat of the licence being withdrawn is the ultimate deterrent. That would happen if the detailed requirements of the ITC licence awarded to both Central and Carlton were not met.
The world has not stood still since ITV was designed in 1955. It has not even stood still since the Broadcasting Act 1990. ITV needs a strong domestic base, and the confidence to meet new players from the United States of America, Europe and Japan. A number of objections have been raised to the new rules. Almost all of them are based on fundamental misconceptions of the way in which ITV is organised.
In the short time that I have left, I have three points to make. First, there is no threat to the regional nature of ITV in the new rules. Television stations and their owners are two different things, and they always have been. Nothing in the current rules requires any regional licence to be owned within its region. We have already heard that Central Television is not midlands-owned. It would be better served being owned by Carlton than being owned by Berlusconi or Bertlesmann. If regional ownership, with the essential guarantee of regional programmes, were such a vital necessity, why did the existing ITV companies reduce such regional programming, when it is not regionally owned? The real guarantees of regionality are in the ITC agreement.
The second guarantee is the powers available to the ITC, and I outlined that in my intervention to the hon. Member for Redcar, and earlier in my talk—[Laughter.]—my speech, my lecture. The ITC has an important role to play in the years ahead, and it is absurd to pretend that commercial restrictive ownership rules are a more


workable way to protect the public interest. Regional programming is a valuable commodity, and it will be maintained.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fabricant: No, I will not, as I have only one minute left.
Thirdly and lastly, what are the practical options available to the Government? Some have called for a moratorium on takeovers. We cannot stop the clock, sit back and carefully consider ITV ownership. There is no option available to us, because of the change in European rules.
I live in the midlands, and I would rather have Central Television putting out regional programmes controlled by Carlton than any programmes controlled by the Bertlesmanns and Berlusconis of this world. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I shall leave until the end my response to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam)—I intend that as a compliment to her representation of the Opposition. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for his robustness and clarity, and for his continuing attention and vigilance on the subject that we have been debating.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) was in favour of regulation of everything. This country is widely regarded as the best-placed market in the world for cable and telecommunications and the interaction between them, because of the Government's insistence on making sure that we avoid becoming over-regulated. The hon. Gentleman said in conclusion that there was nothing in my speech about sustaining the domestic production base. I can only refer him to the text of the speech that I delivered, where he will see that I made it clear that it was the second main objective of the Government's actions. With admirable appositeness, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) made exactly the same point—that the maintenance of the domestic production base lies at the heart of our policy. In the cross-media review, we shall not only consider the relations of broadcasting and the press but go much wider.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a case not just of the ITC enforcing the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 but of enforcing the terms of the licence based on the applications made by the franchisees, which include regional production of major network television?

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right. On at least one major occasion this year, the ITC has returned to that very issue.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) also referred to cross-media ownership, but the foreign companies that might bid in this market will be subject to exactly the same rules as British companies. The rules apply to bidders from any direction. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said about regional output, I merely quantify what I said earlier. On the basis of the first

nine months, there will be 11,000 hours of regional output in the current year, whereas there were 8,250 in the previous ones.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) impressed everyone on the Select Committee on National Heritage by his knowledge of this subject, and he added to his reputation tonight.
In my remaining two minutes, I deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Redcar. I thought that there was in her speech a touch of "Stop the world, I want to get off." From what she said, one would not have thought that the Labour party opposed the introduction of commercial television in the first place or that it opposed the introduction of Channel 4. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that regional television was dying, despite the increase in regional programming hours that I have described, and in particular animadverted on Granada. One would not think that Granada has just been nominated for 12 BAFTA awards, eight more than any other ITV company. The hon. Lady's position on the moratorium was essentially protectionist. The hon. Member for Redcar is said to be much more open minded.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the Opposition's spokesman on broadcasting, said a couple of weeks ago that the Opposition were contemplating a "mid-course correction"—not before time, I should say, but so much for the intellectual continuity of the Opposition's case. I give the hon. Member for Redcar credit for having maintained the Opposition's enthusiasm for a moratorium, although her grounds have subtly shifted. The Independent on Sunday reported that the hon. Lady had
surprised observers by coming out in favour of complete deregulation of ITV".
I detect in her the characteristic of the Liberal Democrat—of running with the hare and apologising to the hounds when they catch up.
Bruce Gyngell, the former chief executive of TV-am, called the proposed changes
the best news I've heard for British broadcasting in the last 10 or 15 years.
I have never been much given to hyperbole—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 109.

Division No. 22]
[1.18 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bates, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Congdon, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Brazier, Julian
Couchman, James


Bright, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)






Deva, Nirj Joseph
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Devlin, Tim
Merchant, Piers


Dicks, Terry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Monro, Sir Hector


Duncan, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Nicholls, Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Norris, Steve


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Openheim, Philip


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fabricant, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Fishburn, Dudley
Richards, Rod


Forman, Nigel
Riddick, Graham


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Forth, Eric
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Sackville, Tom


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gallie, Phil
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gardiner, Sir George
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gillan, Cheryl
Speed, Sir Keith


Gorst, John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hague, William
Sproat, Iain


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Harris, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Haselhurst, Alan
Steen, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Stephen, Michael


Hendry, Charles
Stern, Michael


Horam, John
Sykes, John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thomason, Roy


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Trend, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Viggers, Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Waller, Gary


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Watts, John


Legg, Barry
Wells, Bowen


Leigh, Edward
Whitney, Ray


Lidington, David
Whittingdale, John


Lightbown, David
Whittingdale, Ann


MacKay, Andrew
Willetts, David


Maclean, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Madel, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maitland, Lady Olga



Malone, Gerald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mans, Keith
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Marlow, Tony
Mr. Timothy Wood.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Dowd, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Etherington, Bill


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Graham, Thomas


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Gunnell, John


Cousins, Jim
Hall, Mike


Cryer, Bob
Hanson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Dafis, Cynog
Hinchliffe, David


Darling, Alistair
Hood, Jimmy


Davidson, Ian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dixon, Don
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)





Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Patchett, Terry


Illsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pike, peter L.


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Rendel, David


Lewis, Terry
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, peter (Belfast E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCrea, Rev William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Mandelson, Peter
Spellar, John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Stevenson, George


Maxton, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Meale, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Michael, Alun
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilson, Brian


Miller, Andrew
Wise, Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliot
Tellers for the Noes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Paisley, Rev Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. &c.)

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 19th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

That the draft Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1993, which laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Limit) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

SCHOOL MILK

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7825/93, relating to the supply of milk and certain milk products at reduced prices to schoolchildren; and acknowledges the Government's efforts in securing an agreement which, whilst reflecting the need for budgetary restraint, safeguards the viability of the scheme.

STATE AID FOR COAL

That this House takes note of European Document No. 4569/93, relating to State aid to the coal industry; and endorses the Government's intention to work for Council assent to a replacement Decision based on the document in timely fashion before the present Decision expires on 31st December 1993.

COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8107/93, relating to Community research and development; and endorses the Government's negotiating objectives of securing both excellence and value for taxpayers' money in these activities, enhancing their contribution to economic competitiveness, and seeking in particular an overall amount for the Fourth Framework Programme and a detailed breakdown of expenditure between activities that reflects the United Kingdom's interests and priorities.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Sunday Trading

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Despite earlier events, I rise to present a petition organised by the Association of Master Bakers and presented to me late yesterday by its president. The petition contains 15,000 signatures of owners, staff and customers of independent bakeries in England and Wales.
The petition declares that the future of many small food shops is being put at risk by the decision of many supermarket groups to trade on Sundays to the detriment of the variety, vitality and viability of traditional shopping areas in towns and villages in England and Wales, to the detriment of customer choice and to the detriment of employment prospects.
The petitioners therefore request that this honourable House of Commons debate the future of food retailing in England and Wales and take account of all relevant social, environmental and economic factors when debating the reform of the Shops Act 1950.
And the petitioners, remaining the loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, offer their humble respect to the House of Commons.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Foster Carers (Pensions)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Ms Ann Coffey: I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring the issue of foster carers and their access to pensions before the House. Perhaps I could begin with some facts. According to statistics produced by the National Foster Care Association, there are approximately 27,000 foster families in the United Kingdom and around 40,000 children in foster care. I congratulate the National Foster Care Association on its ceaseless campaigning on behalf of foster carers.
The majority of children in care or accommodated by any local authority are in foster homes. In my town of Stockport, 58 per cent. of children in the care of the local authority are in foster homes. Those children range from 0 to 16 years of age. The reason I am giving those rather dry statistics is to give an appreciation of the valuable service offered by foster parents to local authorities for children in need.
I shall give some more statistics. According to a written answer to a parliamentary question by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) on 4 March, 1993, the average cost to the Exchequer is £102 per week for a foster placement, £530 per week for a children's home and £943 per week for a registered voluntary home. I make it absolutely clear that not many foster parents receive as much as £120 per week. Indeed, according to figures calculated by the National Foster Care Association and other sources, only 3 per cent. of foster carers receive any financial reward in the way of a wage. The remaining 97 per cent. receive only boarding-out payments.
As hon. Members will be aware, boarding-out rates differ. In the north west, which is of specific interest to me, the figures are £42·75 for a child up to seven years and £46·41 for a child from eight to 10 years. I could continue to give the boarding-out rates, but I think I have made my point. The boarding-out payment is intended to cover all the costs associated with care of the child including food, replacement clothing, heating, dinner money, hospital visits, family outings and many other items.
Foster parents, unlike child minders, cannot set their own charges. Such charges are decided by local authorities. For many years, foster carers have said that the boarding-out rate does not cover the cost of care, which is subsidised by the foster family out of its pocket and good will. I wish to emphasis that because I shall return to good will later in my speech.
I can remember visiting a children's home some 15 years ago when I was a social worker. That home had a residential nursery, as many children's homes had in those days. Happily, those days are gone because foster carers are available to provide family care to children. Indeed it would cost the Government a fortune to accommodate those 40,000 children in foster care. In Stockport alone, homes would have to be found for 167 children. By my estimate, that means six new homes. I emphasise those economic arguments because I know that the Government will appreciate them.
To return to the children—who are, after all, the important people in the debate—they are not easy children. They often come from disturbed backgrounds. They come into foster care with emotional, physical and educational


difficulties. They come at short notice. They can stay for unplanned periods. They can be very needy of love and endless attention. Looking after them needs skill, patience and perseverance.
Foster parents have other tasks: for example, helping to write and give evidence in court and preparing children for eventual adoption. In addition, the Children Act 1989 requires foster parents to work closely with the children's family, which may involve visits from the family to the foster parent's home—a very sensitive area.
There is an increasing difficulty in attracting foster carers because it is becoming a tough job although it has its rewards. I fear that the Government are relying on good will too heavily and that that good will may be running out. Some authorities are having so much difficulty in recruiting foster parents that, for instance, one local authority has been known to use child minders as an emergency measure, paying them at an hourly rate. In some cases, that could cost up to £200 or £300 for an emergency placement.
In this debate I am asking the Government to provide their share of good will and do something for foster carers that will underline the fact that they are valued and that their contribution is valued. I am asking the Government to extend home responsibility protection to foster carers.
The recent Budget confirmed the Government's commitment to encourage men and women to take responsibility for their own pension arrangements. It also confirmed a move towards establishing a state pension age of 65 for women. That move poses an especial problem for women foster carers because the great majority of them are not in paid employment and are therefore unable to make private pension arrangements. Although a few foster families receive a small fee in addition to the normal cost of looking after children, approximately 97 per cent. of all foster families in the UK receive no taxable fee-paying element whatsoever. That means that women who are not in paid employment because they are looking after foster children in their own home are at a disadvantage compared with women in outside paid employment and those caring for their own children and not in employment, who receive some protection of their pension rights.
At present, home responsibility protection is automatically paid to anyone in receipt of child benefit, and ceases when the child is 16. I should like home responsibility protection to be extended to foster carers who are at home and not in paid employment.
As well as an extension of home responsibility protection to foster carers, I should also like there to be an extension of the maximum number of years that home responsibility protection can be granted to foster carers. Twenty years is the current maximum. Foster carers who have themselves been parents will possibly not start caring for other people's children until a later stage in their lives and are therefore likely to have used up most or all of their rights to home responsibility protection in caring for their own children.
Unless the maximum of years is extended, provision for home responsibility protection is unlikely in itself to have significant impact on the majority of foster families. Figures produced by the National Foster Care Association show that the average woman foster carer is in her middle to late forties. A sample of 4,185 foster families from 30

local authorities throughout the UK showed that 66 per cent.—two out of three—were aged over 40 and 62 per cent. were aged between 40 and 60. I should therefore like home responsibility protection to be extended to foster carers who are looking after children in their own home and do not have children under the age of 16. I should also like the number of years that they need to be in paid employment to qualify for a pension in their own right to be reduced.
The alternative to the extension of home responsibility protection would be to use the money saved from child benefit when children are looked after by local authorities to pay voluntary national insurance contributions for foster carers so long as they continue to provide a service, as sums are currently saved by the Government because child benefit does not pass from parents to local authorities or to carers after the first eight weeks of any care episode.
The Government may say that they would need an army of civil servants to identify and keep records of any entitlement to HRP or voluntary national insurance contributions for foster carers, but it is now possible for the local authority to inform the appropriate Government Department of the foster carers who are approved and registered by them annually. It would seem to be a fairly easy arrangement for the local authority at the end of each financial year to send a list of approved carers to the local social security offices. The officers could then record those carers either for HRP purposes or for the crediting of voluntary contributions.
I tabled a question on 27 April 1993:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the home responsibility protection to foster carers who do not receive a financial reward from fostering; and if he will give reasons for his answer.
The reply was:
Eligibility for HRP is dependent on entitlement to certain benefits, primarily child benefit. To avoid double provision from public funds for the cost of child care, child benefit is not paid to foster carers who receive an allowance from the local authority. Consequently HRP is not available in these cases."—[Official Report, 27 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 382.]
However, I am not talking about the cost of child care, because it is clear that the Exchequer benefits from the contributions of foster parents. I am talking about the cost of foster care to the foster parents themselves. It is only fair that the home responsibility allowance should be extended to them.
In extending the allowance, the Government would offer recognition and show that they value the enormous amount of work done day after day by countless foster parents who pick up the pieces of desperate family situations and provide valuable care for the victims—the children. It would be grossly unfair for the Government to continue to withhold home responsibility protection.
To sum up the arguments, we need foster carers for children. Foster carers save money. They should therefore not suffer financially when they reach pension age after a lifetime of service to the community. No doubt the Minister will acknowledge that contribution, and he will be sincere in doing so. I ask him to carry that sentiment further and agree to consider the issue again. If he does, he will give a valuable and overdue message to foster carers. He will be saying, "We thank you for caring for our children and in return we shall try to look after you." Surely we do not want foster parents to be consigned to an old age of poverty on the minimum state pension as a result of their


lifetime of service to the community. I ask the Minister to reconsider, and to extend home responsibility protection to foster carers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on securing the debate, albeit at a time of night at which attendance in the House is much diminished. However, we are joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) is also with us—but, of course, he is here in his capacity as a Whip, and Whips never sleep anyway, so his being here is not the result of any special effort on his part.
I know from the background of the hon. Member for Stockport, and from the question that she asked earlier this year, which she mentioned, that this is a subject close to her heart and one of which she has great experience. I have listened carefully to what she has said and have been impressed by the care and concern with which she has put the issue before the House.
It is, of course, important for all people to think about their pension rights and to plan for their income in retirement, and I would not want to discourage foster carers or anyone else from doing so. On the contrary, the Department of Social Security is devoting considerable effort to encouraging people to consider the matter early in their working lives. Some foster carers will, of course, have built up or will be entitled to pension rights acquired at other times in their working lives, or through their wives or husbands, but I will discuss that aspect in a moment.
It may be useful for me to begin by clarifying briefly the conditions that have to be satisfied for receipt of state retirement pension. The basic state pension is paid at the full rate of £56·10 per week to anyone, man or woman, who has paid full rate national insurance contributions for about 90 per cent. of his or her working life. National insurance credits are available to assist people who are absent from the work force, and therefore not able to make contributions, for specific reasons such as sickness or unemployment. People are thus allowed a gap of some five years in their record without its affecting their basic pension. A scaled down rate of basic pension is available to anyone with reduced contributions, provided that they have at least a 25 per cent. record.
As the hon. Lady is doubtless aware, many married women have retained their right not to pay full rate contributions, choosing to rely instead on the pension paid to them on their husbands' contributions, at 60 per cent. of the husband's basic pension—normally £33·70 a week. While I am on that subject, it may be appropriate to mention that where a marriage ends in divorce a married woman who was seeking to rely on her husband's record should not lose out. On retirement, she is still able to use her former husband's record for the years of the marriage where her own record is insufficient.
Additional to the basic pension, of course, we have SERPS. People have been building up their rights to that additional earnings-related pension since 1978. It is becoming an increasingly large part of the state pensions provision and is set to become even more so as the scheme matures. Entitlement to the basic state pension can, of course, be improved through home responsibilities

protection, to which the hon. Lady referred. That provision exists to protect the basic pension position of people who are unable to work regularly and are unable to make their own contributions because they are precluded from the employment field due to caring responsibilities at home. It applies to those who are caring for sick or disabled people at home, but its primary application and the one that is relevant to this discussion is in relation to people who are raising a family.
I should make clear for the record, because there is often confusion about it, that HRP is not a contribution credit and does not make up a deficiency in a person's contribution record. It reduces the number of qualifying years that a person needs to qualify for a full basic pension, and there is a maximum on the number of years, as the hon. Lady has already described.
HRP was brought in by the Labour Government in 1978. They designed it to be of benefit with only the simplest of qualifying criteria as a passport entitlement which was based on the receipt of a qualifying benefit—in this case, child benefit. HRP coverage in cases of child benefit extends until the child is 16.
As the then Under-Secretary of State and former hon. Member for Rotherham, the late Brian O'Malley, said at the time of the introduction of the relevant legislation in 1975,
it is right that we should adopt a 'broad brush' approach to this to keep the system as simple and as straightforward as possible … We should hope to identify most people eligible for protection during periods of home responsibilities by reference to social security benefits in payment … By far the largest group will be those who are at home looking after children and they will be readily identified through the proposed new system of child benefits which will replace the present system of family allowances.
So the broad brush nature of HRP is well established and dates back to previous Governments.
Why, then, it might be argued, can we not extend child benefit entitlement to foster carers? The purpose of child benefit is to provide a measure of financial assistance for families with dependent children. It is paid directly to the person having care of the child—usually the mother. As well as replacing the previous family allowance, it broadly takes the place of the tax allowances which used to be available to the working parent. It is an established principle of social security provision that there should be no double provision from public funds for the same contingency. For this reason, child benefit is not payable where a foster carer receives a fostering allowance from a local authority. Similar provision existed prior to 1977 under the old family allowance scheme. In my view, and in the view of Governments over many years, that is right. Clearly it would not be satisfactory to use taxpayers' funds to make double provision. I have to say that, in keeping with that long-established principle, we have no plans to change the existing provisions.
If child benefit cannot and should not be paid in those circumstances, could or should HRP be extended to foster carers by some other route? In theory, of course, it could be, although it could be administratively complex and would be a departure from the simple, broad brush nature of the system as was devised by our predecessors.
Successive Governments have taken the view that such a change should not be made, partly because of the factors that I have described, partly because the pension


entitlements of foster carers can be built up in other ways and partly because of the provision made for foster carers elsewhere in the benefit system.
Many foster carers will, naturally, have a husband or a wife who is building up or has built up a full contribution record. A wife can be awarded a category B pension, raising the pension entitlement to the full state pension for a couple on the strength of the husband's contributions. If she is below pension age, the same addition to the husband's pension may be made as an adult dependency increase. Under the proposals made last week for equalising the state pension age, such additions and category B pensions will in future be awarded for a husband on the strength of a wife's contributions as well as the other way round.
Other foster carers will be bringing up children of their own at the same time as they are being foster carers. In their cases, HRP will already be available. I recognise that a majority of foster carers are over 40 and many will already have brought up their own children, with the result that the period during which they could claim child benefit will have come to an end. However, HRP may be of limited further value in many such cases, as the hon. Lady recognised, since 20 years is currently the maximum number of years for which HRP can be awarded. We plan to raise this to 22 years when the state pension age is equalised. The maximum will be 22 years for men and women. To raise it to more than half the working life required to claim a full state pension would seriously erode the contributory nature of the state pension scheme.
So it is by no means always the case that foster carers' pension entitlements will suffer as a result of their work, nor is it necessarily the case that their position would be improved by changing the basis on which HRP is awarded, although that would help some people. It can be argued that where pension entitlements might suffer, the state scheme leaves it open to people to take their own action to safeguard their pension provision through the payment of voluntary class 3 national insurance contributions, currently set at £5·45 a week.
On top of this is the additional consideration that the social security system already provides, quite rightly, some help to foster carers. A foster parent who satisfies the other conditions for income support can qualify for that benefit. Although people would normally be debarred from IS if they work more than 16 hours a week, foster parents are not debarred, however many hours a week they devote to

fostering. The fostering allowance is totally disregarded, although no allowance is made in the IS assessment for the foster child.
Alternatively a person who is employed as a foster parent for at least 16 hours a week can qualify for family credit on the basis of that work. In the great majority of cases, of course, that person would be better off on IS, but again the fostering allowance is totally disregarded in the FC assessment.
This brings me to the subject of the fostering allowance itself. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the arrangements for fostering are covered by a comprehensive set of regulations which are the responsibility of my colleagues in the Department of Health. Fostering is arranged through local authorities who pay foster carers a weekly allowance to cover additional living costs associated with caring. Higher rates go to those caring for children with special needs. I am advised by the Health Department that the number of foster carers has remained fairly constant in recent years, at about 30,000. The amounts they receive vary from £50 to £200 a week, with the average being in the order of £100. I recognise, however, from what the hon. Lady said that some payments may be lower than £50. The fact that foster carers are recompensed by the local authority for the work they do is obviously another factor which must be considered when weighing these issues.
I would not wish to deny that the hon. Lady has raised a subject of perfectly legitimate concern for some people. She has presented her case powerfully. It does, however, have to be seen against a background of long-established arrangements which have been adhered to through successive Parliaments and Governments of both parties; of the need for tight controls of public expenditure now and in the future requiring all spending proposals to be judged against other priorities; of the alternative routes available for many foster carers to build up or purchase pension entitlement; and of the extensive and well justified provision already made to help them in their work. When we have, quite rightly, to reassure ourselves that every aspect of social spending is justified and defensible, I cannot conclude at present that there exists a sufficiently strong case for changing the present long-standing arrangements.
I accept, however, that the hon. Lady has raised some valid points on behalf of a group of people who perform a sterling service to the children in their care and to society generally, and I will look in detail at the points that she has raised and the implications of what she has proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.